Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

The Third Way - Catholicism and Homosexuality

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/4/2014 11:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.blackstonefilms.org...

The Third Way is a 30 minute Catholic movie on homosexuality and the nature of the Church.

The movie is a brilliant, and rather emotional movie that focuses on the personal lives of about 5 homosexual men and women, their wanderings away from God and into the arms of the secular society and their journey back to the Catholic Church. These people give their stories.

The movie largely focuses on society, and even many Christians who treat homosexuality as something evil, and something that is worthy of degrading a human being of their dignity. The Catholic Church stands as a beacon of love, welcoming all who are homosexual and presenting a new path for homosexuals: chastity. They dismiss the two paths society has presented; homosexuals are either repressed, unworthy people or they are people who must fulfill their homosexual desires by acting upon their sexuality.

I liked the movie quite a lot, and I think it may be worth your time to be willing to open your mind a bit (As in not immediately rejecting everything the movie presents, listening carefully and judging justly) and watch the movie.

My description of the movie really doesn't give the movie much justice. The movie is much better than my pretty choppy description, and I think it may be worth your time to give the movie a shot.

If you do watch, please post your thoughts here.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 3:21:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/4/2014 11:48:20 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
http://www.blackstonefilms.org...

The Third Way is a 30 minute Catholic movie on homosexuality and the nature of the Church.

The movie is a brilliant, and rather emotional movie that focuses on the personal lives of about 5 homosexual men and women, their wanderings away from God and into the arms of the secular society and their journey back to the Catholic Church. These people give their stories.

The movie largely focuses on society, and even many Christians who treat homosexuality as something evil, and something that is worthy of degrading a human being of their dignity. The Catholic Church stands as a beacon of love, welcoming all who are homosexual and presenting a new path for homosexuals: chastity.

...that's not a third way. That's been the same narrative from within the Catholic Church since John Paul.

They dismiss the two paths society has presented; homosexuals are either repressed, unworthy people or they are people who must fulfill their homosexual desires by acting upon their sexuality.

If by "society" you mean, neo-Victorian moralists, then sure.

I liked the movie quite a lot, and I think it may be worth your time to be willing to open your mind a bit (As in not immediately rejecting everything the movie presents, listening carefully and judging justly) and watch the movie.

My description of the movie really doesn't give the movie much justice. The movie is much better than my pretty choppy description, and I think it may be worth your time to give the movie a shot.

If you do watch, please post your thoughts here.

The way that the Catholic Church presents homosexuality is pretty simple: homosexuality, as a sexual identity, is not a sin. Acting on homosexual impulses is. The Catholic Church has a similar position on premarital sex: acting on it, too, is a sin. That's the real reason why the Catholic Church will most likely not perform or acknowledge gay marriages for the next 50-75 years; to perform a gay marriage is to permit same sex sexual contact.

And yet, in all cases where references to male-on-male sexual contact exist in the bible, they refer not to "homosexuality" as we conceive of it today, because homosexuality (a sexual orientation/identity) was not a concept that existed when the bible was written. What did exist when Paul wrote to the Romans was the practice of free-born adult men engaging in exploitative relationships with very young adolescent boys of lower social classes. Today, we call that pederasty, and we distinguish it from homosexuality -which is to say that not all same sex sexual contact is the same thing -as did Paul.

The reason that we talk about homosexuality as a theological issue is because, mainly, of the Victorian era in England and the cultural impact that the Victorian age had on all of Western civilization. During that time, pederasty was conflated with homosexuality and the distinction was lost at the expense of nearly a one quarter of a millennium's people who were not heterosexual.

The problem, then, is for people to get their history right. Our Victorian cultural inheritance is based on a misconception, that became a manufactured truth (a lie) which was translated into a norm, and is now perhaps the most contentious theological issue in the church -but it shouldn't be, because the only reason that it is to begin with was because of an intellectual mistake.

Even as a liberal Christian, I can accept the permissibility of me having sex with another guy as being sinful but it is only sinful to the same extent that all premarital sex is sinful. People are still going to have premarital sex, but the categorical distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals as a theological issue is one that's based on nothing.

What's most tragic about this quarter millennium error that's been going on since that time is that people have forsaken their faith because of what PEOPLE in the Church have said about homosexuality, gay rights and gay people. When the church (and by the church, I mean its members) drives people away from salvation based on the idea that gay people are of a sub-human status (which has been said, implied and prosethelized ad nauseum), the problem is with the church itself. And it's not as if this mistake hasn't been made before. It's the exact same thing that the pharisees did! Figures like Rick Santorum are the pharisees of the present.

What's so ultimately disgusting about that reality is that figures like Santorum prove that Nietzsche was right: we are all (the church included) destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. I'd like to think that one day the church could move beyond it's own dogmatic errors... but I doubt it will.

I suppose Matthew, Chapter 15 isn't something that they're especially concerned with. I suppose John 16 is similarly forsaken:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are Mine; therefore I said that He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see Me; and again a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father."

What Jesus understood was that there is a limited degree of change that humans can accept at any point in their lives. They believe what they are taught to be true, because they have no independent metric of rightness and wrongness. But, there is hope in human progression -in that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that hope should not be forsaken in dogmatic defense of a tradition that intellectually assaults the meaning of scripture.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 3:45:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 3:21:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/4/2014 11:48:20 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
http://www.blackstonefilms.org...

The Third Way is a 30 minute Catholic movie on homosexuality and the nature of the Church.

The movie is a brilliant, and rather emotional movie that focuses on the personal lives of about 5 homosexual men and women, their wanderings away from God and into the arms of the secular society and their journey back to the Catholic Church. These people give their stories.

The movie largely focuses on society, and even many Christians who treat homosexuality as something evil, and something that is worthy of degrading a human being of their dignity. The Catholic Church stands as a beacon of love, welcoming all who are homosexual and presenting a new path for homosexuals: chastity.

...that's not a third way. That's been the same narrative from within the Catholic Church since John Paul.

The point of it being called the third way is because most people ignore, and usually think they have to take one of two ways society has presented.

They dismiss the two paths society has presented; homosexuals are either repressed, unworthy people or they are people who must fulfill their homosexual desires by acting upon their sexuality.

If by "society" you mean, neo-Victorian moralists, then sure.

I liked the movie quite a lot, and I think it may be worth your time to be willing to open your mind a bit (As in not immediately rejecting everything the movie presents, listening carefully and judging justly) and watch the movie.

My description of the movie really doesn't give the movie much justice. The movie is much better than my pretty choppy description, and I think it may be worth your time to give the movie a shot.

If you do watch, please post your thoughts here.

Did you watch the movie?

The way that the Catholic Church presents homosexuality is pretty simple: homosexuality, as a sexual identity, is not a sin. Acting on homosexual impulses is. The Catholic Church has a similar position on premarital sex: acting on it, too, is a sin.

Actually the position is exactly the same. Homosexuality in of itself is not its own specific case. The position is that since marriage is between man and woman as God ordered it, and pre-marital sex is immoral, then acting upon homosexuality sexually is immoral (because it is inherently pre-marital).

That's the real reason why the Catholic Church will most likely not perform or acknowledge gay marriages for the next 50-75 years; to perform a gay marriage is to permit same sex sexual contact.

And yet, in all cases where references to male-on-male sexual contact exist in the bible, they refer not to "homosexuality" as we conceive of it today, because homosexuality (a sexual orientation/identity) was not a concept that existed when the bible was written. What did exist when Paul wrote to the Romans was the practice of free-born adult men engaging in exploitative relationships with very young adolescent boys of lower social classes. Today, we call that pederasty, and we distinguish it from homosexuality -which is to say that not all same sex sexual contact is the same thing -as did Paul.

Can you present evidence for this? I highly doubt that the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation was practically non-existent. How do we know passages didn't apply to homosexuality itself, or also to homosexuality?

The reason that we talk about homosexuality as a theological issue is because, mainly, of the Victorian era in England and the cultural impact that the Victorian age had on all of Western civilization. During that time, pederasty was conflated with homosexuality and the distinction was lost at the expense of nearly a one quarter of a millennium's people who were not heterosexual.

The problem, then, is for people to get their history right. Our Victorian cultural inheritance is based on a misconception, that became a manufactured truth (a lie) which was translated into a norm, and is now perhaps the most contentious theological issue in the church -but it shouldn't be, because the only reason that it is to begin with was because of an intellectual mistake.

Even as a liberal Christian, I can accept the permissibility of me having sex with another guy as being sinful but it is only sinful to the same extent that all premarital sex is sinful. People are still going to have premarital sex, but the categorical distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals as a theological issue is one that's based on nothing.

It's based on the concept of marriage, and how marriage is between male and female.

What's most tragic about this quarter millennium error that's been going on since that time is that people have forsaken their faith because of what PEOPLE in the Church have said about homosexuality, gay rights and gay people. When the church (and by the church, I mean its members) drives people away from salvation based on the idea that gay people are of a sub-human status (which has been said, implied and prosethelized ad nauseum), the problem is with the church itself. And it's not as if this mistake hasn't been made before. It's the exact same thing that the pharisees did! Figures like Rick Santorum are the pharisees of the present.

The movie talks about this. The Church, by Catholic tradition, is inherently good because it is guided by the Holy Spirit. However, it is the Christians within the Church that can be evil.

So Christians have persecuted homosexuals, but that does not mean that is what Christians should do, or that is what Christians are taught. In fact, when a Christian does such a thing they are not being a Christian at all.

What's so ultimately disgusting about that reality is that figures like Santorum prove that Nietzsche was right: we are all (the church included) destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. I'd like to think that one day the church could move beyond it's own dogmatic errors... but I doubt it will.

I suppose Matthew, Chapter 15 isn't something that they're especially concerned with. I suppose John 16 is similarly forsaken:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are Mine; therefore I said that He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see Me; and again a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father."

What Jesus understood was that there is a limited degree of change that humans can accept at any point in their lives. They believe what they are taught to be true, because they have no independent metric of rightness and wrongness. But, there is hope in human progression -in that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that hope should not be forsaken in dogmatic defense of a tradition that intellectually assaults the meaning of scripture.
Nolite Timere
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 4:16:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 3:45:16 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Read:

http://notalllikethat.org...

Or this works too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

More complicated read:

http://www.lionking.org...

This too:

https://christiangays.com... (more conversational)

And this guy has a perspective that's gaining steam:

http://www.christianpost.com...

The above is a good place to start.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2014 4:38:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 4:16:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/5/2014 3:45:16 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

Read:

http://notalllikethat.org...

I read the whole thing. I have a couple things to say:

Watch the movie. The movie itself is about 30 minutes long.

The article begs the question of what marriage is and how God intended it to be. Like I said, acting upon homosexuality is not catergory of sinful behavior itself. It is sinful because it is inherently pre-marital, since marriage is exclusive to man and woman.

I may take a look at the other articles later.

Or this works too:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

More complicated read:

http://www.lionking.org...

This too:

https://christiangays.com... (more conversational)

And this guy has a perspective that's gaining steam:

http://www.christianpost.com...

The above is a good place to start.
Nolite Timere
suemc
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2014 11:41:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Something seemed to go wrong with my first attemp to post - so I'll try again. For more info on The Third Way you may wish to visit the following links. The first is a review by a celibate, lesbian couple. The second is a piece that I wrote which gives some general observations on the tone of the film and also some background on some of the participants. As an additional piece of information, whilst I appreciate why you believe that the 7 people offering personal tesimonies are all Catholic - the film implies this - 2 are definitely not, a third may also not be. I hope that you find the links useful on some level.

http://aqueercalling.com...

http://jpatrickredmond.wordpress.com...

Regards
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:59:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/5/2014 3:21:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/4/2014 11:48:20 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
http://www.blackstonefilms.org...

The Third Way is a 30 minute Catholic movie on homosexuality and the nature of the Church.

The movie is a brilliant, and rather emotional movie that focuses on the personal lives of about 5 homosexual men and women, their wanderings away from God and into the arms of the secular society and their journey back to the Catholic Church. These people give their stories.

The movie largely focuses on society, and even many Christians who treat homosexuality as something evil, and something that is worthy of degrading a human being of their dignity. The Catholic Church stands as a beacon of love, welcoming all who are homosexual and presenting a new path for homosexuals: chastity.

...that's not a third way. That's been the same narrative from within the Catholic Church since John Paul.

They dismiss the two paths society has presented; homosexuals are either repressed, unworthy people or they are people who must fulfill their homosexual desires by acting upon their sexuality.

If by "society" you mean, neo-Victorian moralists, then sure.

I liked the movie quite a lot, and I think it may be worth your time to be willing to open your mind a bit (As in not immediately rejecting everything the movie presents, listening carefully and judging justly) and watch the movie.

My description of the movie really doesn't give the movie much justice. The movie is much better than my pretty choppy description, and I think it may be worth your time to give the movie a shot.

If you do watch, please post your thoughts here.

The way that the Catholic Church presents homosexuality is pretty simple: homosexuality, as a sexual identity, is not a sin. Acting on homosexual impulses is. The Catholic Church has a similar position on premarital sex: acting on it, too, is a sin. That's the real reason why the Catholic Church will most likely not perform or acknowledge gay marriages for the next 50-75 years; to perform a gay marriage is to permit same sex sexual contact.

And yet, in all cases where references to male-on-male sexual contact exist in the bible, they refer not to "homosexuality" as we conceive of it today, because homosexuality (a sexual orientation/identity) was not a concept that existed when the bible was written. What did exist when Paul wrote to the Romans was the practice of free-born adult men engaging in exploitative relationships with very young adolescent boys of lower social classes. Today, we call that pederasty, and we distinguish it from homosexuality -which is to say that not all same sex sexual contact is the same thing -as did Paul.

The reason that we talk about homosexuality as a theological issue is because, mainly, of the Victorian era in England and the cultural impact that the Victorian age had on all of Western civilization. During that time, pederasty was conflated with homosexuality and the distinction was lost at the expense of nearly a one quarter of a millennium's people who were not heterosexual.

The problem, then, is for people to get their history right. Our Victorian cultural inheritance is based on a misconception, that became a manufactured truth (a lie) which was translated into a norm, and is now perhaps the most contentious theological issue in the church -but it shouldn't be, because the only reason that it is to begin with was because of an intellectual mistake.

Even as a liberal Christian, I can accept the permissibility of me having sex with another guy as being sinful but it is only sinful to the same extent that all premarital sex is sinful. People are still going to have premarital sex, but the categorical distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals as a theological issue is one that's based on nothing.

What's most tragic about this quarter millennium error that's been going on since that time is that people have forsaken their faith because of what PEOPLE in the Church have said about homosexuality, gay rights and gay people. When the church (and by the church, I mean its members) drives people away from salvation based on the idea that gay people are of a sub-human status (which has been said, implied and prosethelized ad nauseum), the problem is with the church itself. And it's not as if this mistake hasn't been made before. It's the exact same thing that the pharisees did! Figures like Rick Santorum are the pharisees of the present.

What's so ultimately disgusting about that reality is that figures like Santorum prove that Nietzsche was right: we are all (the church included) destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. I'd like to think that one day the church could move beyond it's own dogmatic errors... but I doubt it will.

I suppose Matthew, Chapter 15 isn't something that they're especially concerned with. I suppose John 16 is similarly forsaken:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are Mine; therefore I said that He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see Me; and again a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father."

What Jesus understood was that there is a limited degree of change that humans can accept at any point in their lives. They believe what they are taught to be true, because they have no independent metric of rightness and wrongness. But, there is hope in human progression -in that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that hope should not be forsaken in dogmatic defense of a tradition that intellectually assaults the meaning of scripture.

It's not surprising that you've become a raving Matthew Vines fan. Rationalization and justification soon follows sin, after all. Vine's literary contributions may help merrily against non-expert internet-users, but not against experts like Robert Gagnon. I recommend reading his work as he is veritably the authority as far as what the Bible has to say regarding homosexuality. Indeed, he has gone to great lengths to critique Vine's work as have various other biblical experts. Moreover, whatever the Bible has to say on the issue of homosexuality and homosexual acts is, at the end of the day, an in-house issue between theologians and biblical experts. (Not to mention the fact that Vine's attempts to avoid the biblical impermissiblity of homosexual acts/relationships are as hopelessly ad hoc and desperate as one might expect from someone who is homosexual and so is terribly clouded by bias.) That homosexual acts are immoral and contrary to not just our physical but also natural goods is evident through reason alone.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 10:05:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 9:59:35 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 6/5/2014 3:21:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/4/2014 11:48:20 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
http://www.blackstonefilms.org...

The Third Way is a 30 minute Catholic movie on homosexuality and the nature of the Church.

The movie is a brilliant, and rather emotional movie that focuses on the personal lives of about 5 homosexual men and women, their wanderings away from God and into the arms of the secular society and their journey back to the Catholic Church. These people give their stories.

The movie largely focuses on society, and even many Christians who treat homosexuality as something evil, and something that is worthy of degrading a human being of their dignity. The Catholic Church stands as a beacon of love, welcoming all who are homosexual and presenting a new path for homosexuals: chastity.

...that's not a third way. That's been the same narrative from within the Catholic Church since John Paul.

They dismiss the two paths society has presented; homosexuals are either repressed, unworthy people or they are people who must fulfill their homosexual desires by acting upon their sexuality.

If by "society" you mean, neo-Victorian moralists, then sure.

I liked the movie quite a lot, and I think it may be worth your time to be willing to open your mind a bit (As in not immediately rejecting everything the movie presents, listening carefully and judging justly) and watch the movie.

My description of the movie really doesn't give the movie much justice. The movie is much better than my pretty choppy description, and I think it may be worth your time to give the movie a shot.

If you do watch, please post your thoughts here.

The way that the Catholic Church presents homosexuality is pretty simple: homosexuality, as a sexual identity, is not a sin. Acting on homosexual impulses is. The Catholic Church has a similar position on premarital sex: acting on it, too, is a sin. That's the real reason why the Catholic Church will most likely not perform or acknowledge gay marriages for the next 50-75 years; to perform a gay marriage is to permit same sex sexual contact.

And yet, in all cases where references to male-on-male sexual contact exist in the bible, they refer not to "homosexuality" as we conceive of it today, because homosexuality (a sexual orientation/identity) was not a concept that existed when the bible was written. What did exist when Paul wrote to the Romans was the practice of free-born adult men engaging in exploitative relationships with very young adolescent boys of lower social classes. Today, we call that pederasty, and we distinguish it from homosexuality -which is to say that not all same sex sexual contact is the same thing -as did Paul.

The reason that we talk about homosexuality as a theological issue is because, mainly, of the Victorian era in England and the cultural impact that the Victorian age had on all of Western civilization. During that time, pederasty was conflated with homosexuality and the distinction was lost at the expense of nearly a one quarter of a millennium's people who were not heterosexual.

The problem, then, is for people to get their history right. Our Victorian cultural inheritance is based on a misconception, that became a manufactured truth (a lie) which was translated into a norm, and is now perhaps the most contentious theological issue in the church -but it shouldn't be, because the only reason that it is to begin with was because of an intellectual mistake.

Even as a liberal Christian, I can accept the permissibility of me having sex with another guy as being sinful but it is only sinful to the same extent that all premarital sex is sinful. People are still going to have premarital sex, but the categorical distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals as a theological issue is one that's based on nothing.

What's most tragic about this quarter millennium error that's been going on since that time is that people have forsaken their faith because of what PEOPLE in the Church have said about homosexuality, gay rights and gay people. When the church (and by the church, I mean its members) drives people away from salvation based on the idea that gay people are of a sub-human status (which has been said, implied and prosethelized ad nauseum), the problem is with the church itself. And it's not as if this mistake hasn't been made before. It's the exact same thing that the pharisees did! Figures like Rick Santorum are the pharisees of the present.

What's so ultimately disgusting about that reality is that figures like Santorum prove that Nietzsche was right: we are all (the church included) destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. I'd like to think that one day the church could move beyond it's own dogmatic errors... but I doubt it will.

I suppose Matthew, Chapter 15 isn't something that they're especially concerned with. I suppose John 16 is similarly forsaken:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. However when He, the Spirit of Truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth; for He shall not speak from Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall glorify Me, for He shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you. All things that the Father hath are Mine; therefore I said that He shall take of Mine, and shall show it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see Me; and again a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father."

What Jesus understood was that there is a limited degree of change that humans can accept at any point in their lives. They believe what they are taught to be true, because they have no independent metric of rightness and wrongness. But, there is hope in human progression -in that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that hope should not be forsaken in dogmatic defense of a tradition that intellectually assaults the meaning of scripture.


It's not surprising that you've become a raving Matthew Vines fan.

I'm not a raving... anything.

Rationalization and justification soon follows sin, after all.

Do you realize how, logically, that statement has no impact on what I said?

That homosexual acts are immoral and contrary to not just our physical but also natural goods is evident through reason alone.

I await the day you come out of the closet. When you do, shoot me a PM. We'll talk it out.