West Point Chapel Hosts First Same-sex Wedding

Times have certainly changed. And to think that the Sanctuary Window is inscribed with the words: ‘Duty, Honor, Country.’

Cadet Chapel, the landmark Gothic church that is a center for spiritual life at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, hosted its first same-sex wedding Saturday.

Penelope Gnesin and Brenda Sue Fulton, a West Point graduate, exchanged vows in the regal church in an afternoon ceremony, attended by about 250 guests and conducted by a senior Army chaplain.

The two have been together for 17 years. They had a civil commitment ceremony that didn’t carry any legal force in 1999 and had long hoped to formally tie the knot. The way was cleared last year, when New York legalized same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama lifted the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the military.

The brides, who live in Asbury Park, N.J., would have preferred to have the wedding in New Jersey, but in February, Gov. Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed gay marriage in the state.

Steven Goldstein, founder and CEO of Garden State Equality, had a message for Christie regarding Saturday’s wedding: “Hey, Gov. Christie. It’s a same-sex marriage. It’s good enough for the military chapel at West Point. It ought to be good enough for you.”

“We just couldn’t wait any longer,” Fulton told The Associated Press in a phone interview Saturday.

Cadet Chapel was a more-than-adequate second choice, Fulton said.

“It has a tremendous history, and it is beautiful. That’s where I first heard and said the cadet prayer,” Fulton said, referring to the invocation that says, “Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won.”

The ceremony was the second same-sex wedding at West Point. Last weekend, two of Fulton’s friends, a young lieutenant and her partner, were married in another campus landmark, the small Old Cadet Chapel in West Point’s cemetery.

Fulton has campaigned against the ban on gays in the military as a member of two groups representing gay and lesbian servicemen and servicewomen. She graduated from West Point in 1980, a member of the first class to include women.

She served with the Army Signal Corps in Germany and rose to the rank of captain, but left the service in 1986 partly because she wanted to be open about her sexual orientation. Obama appointed her last year to the U.S. Military Academy’s Board of Visitors.

Fulton said the only hassle involved in arranging her ceremony came when she was initially told that none of West Point’s chaplains was authorized by his or her denomination to perform same-sex weddings.

Luckily, Fulton said, they were able to call on a friend, Army Chaplain Col. J. Wesley Smith. He is the senior Army chaplain at Dover Air Force Base, where he presides over the solemn ceremonies held when the bodies of soldiers killed in action overseas return to U.S. soil.

The couple added other military trappings to their wedding, including a tradition called the saber arch, where officers or cadets hold their swords aloft over the newlyweds as they emerge from the church.

Wikipedia has more on the place of Protestant denomination worship that is the West Point Cadet Chapel.

And it apparently houses one of the largest Church organs in the world.

 

About these ads

About Fr Stephen Smuts
TAC Priest in South Africa.

79 Responses to West Point Chapel Hosts First Same-sex Wedding

  1. Ioannes says:

    Not a wedding, but a farce. A sad imitation of that sacred ritual which binds one MAN and one WOMAN into a SACRAMENTAL union. Certainly, Jesus is not present here.

    This has as much validity and sense as weddings between dogs and oranges. Anything they do is liberally interpreted as their meaningful love for each other. (But most of you folks know this already.)

    • Michael Frost says:

      Ioannes, Have you read the wonderful book by Baroness P.D. James, The Children of Men? Set in the near future where couples can no longer conceive children and England is depopulating dramatically. (Bood completely different than the misguided movie of the same name.) There is a section where the protagonist comes across a couple pushing a pram with a cat in it. For the cat’s baptism! I’ve never forgotten the imagery. [Oddly, when I saw this my initial thought about the Academy and cultural change was...Petraeus and his mistress. Will be interesting to see if she gets hauled in front of a court martial. He made sure to wait till he was officially retired.]

      • Ioannes says:

        I’ve seen only a trailer for the film. Ugh. That’s both the most scariest and infuriating thing I’ve ever imagined. The Cat Baptism, I mean. It’s so reminiscent of “Doggy Communion” that happened a while ago. And I was just livid over that affair. (Because it actually happened. With Catholics, nonetheless!)

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        Is there a difference Robert between expressing your strong feelings against what appears to me at this stage to be St Pauline defined “sin” and shouting? Is that not too a sin in netiqette terms? Are you so without sin yourself that you and Ioannes are in excellent positions to so harshly judge yourselves y/our fellow women, sisters in Christ, Caucasian cousins, again I do not see you nor Ioannes quoting Christ, Jesus, rather resorting to hard, harsh, even Old Testament Mosaic Law 10 Commandments of what not to do, rather than following collapsing them into 2 New Testament Commandments of what to do? My mind wonders what you both think of the Pharasees seeming obsession with laws over people. Isn’t that the very thing that Jesus got nailed to a tree for, daring to be nice to people? It’s as if certain things happened to you both in your respective childhoods, adolescence and early adulthoods to be so apparently hard line, conservative as you claim?

        I find Ionnes emotive, judgemental projections fascinating to the point where I wonder is or has there been another DSM-IV diagnosable (diagnosed) mental health condition and who are your Pastoral Supervisors or Spiritual Directors? I hope they’re reading your respective doctrinal diatribe. I wonder what their respective Comments would be?

      • Indeed Matt, I can see that our presuppositions, thus authority are very different. And as Ioannes suggests I think you in fact clearly distain the real authority of the Word of God! Note when Paul is taking about the Holy Scripture in 2 Tim. 2:15 and chapter 3: 16, etc, he is most certainly talking about the OT!

    • Matthew Fowler says:

      Ioannes, I actually do not see Christ in your Comment, nothing about Jesus, more about homophobic St Pauline doctrine? Please write for yourself, your own Comment. Please do not attempt to speak for others. Please expand, exactly how is this lived experience between two people similar to, “has as much sense and validity as weddings between [animate] dogs and [inanimate] oranges”? My my mind, head & heart fails to follow your as yet apparently esoteric logic. What have I missed? Sincerely concerned,

      • Ioannes says:

        Who cares what you see, you don’t have any authority to determine where Christ is. The Church determines where Christ is, through its Magisterium, its teaching authority. Even if Christ is not in my comment, it changes nothing about the mockery which is “homosexual wedding.” Call me homophobic and intolerant, but for all your name-calling, I’m not wrong. In fact it’s pathetic how you think I’m going to change my views and feel guilt because you think you’ve gotten the moral high ground for tolerating sin? Think again.

        The ultimate purpose of marriage is union, and since God had not made woman to be with woman, or man with man, it is either man and woman, or nothing. Except fornication, of course. Sexual impropriety. Sodomy. (I hope I didn’t offend you, O Sodomite.)

        You see, you probably think you’re a Christian, but since you at least reject the validity of Apostolic Teaching, calling St. Paul “homophobic”, probably as a sign of your contempt for him, you are as Christian as Richard Dawkins. And about as intellectually sound and honest.

        Not even once in Judaism, did it say that it is permissible for members of the same sex to marry each other, hence Christ and the Apostles, and even orthodox and right-believing Christians still uphold the Law; “no man shall lie with another man as if with a woman.” and Jesus, being the embodiment of the Law, is necessarily against this abominable belief and practice of same-sex sin. It is a sin.

        It is not a wedding, it is not a marriage, and they will never produce offspring without having to rely on men. This union is as worthless, regardless of your own subjectivist views, as giving sacrament to animals: they have no souls, hence sacraments given to them is invalid and sacrilegious; the same can be said of “homosexual pseudogamy” woman and woman cannot make children. Even children in the most primitive pre-industrial societies understand this, and no amount of shouting, throwing tantrums, crying, and hurling “homophobic intolerant bigot” at anyone who opposes you will change that fact. Homosexual marriage is unnatural- and if you find exceptions in bonobos and chimps- maybe you should go and live with bonobos and chimps, since you’d be so eager to compare yourself to even their exceptions. You’d probably think they can be baptized and married too. You can be their bishop, if you want.

        You cannot understand why this is a sin because you are in all probability, a self-worshipping, godless atheist at heart for your support of homosexual pseudogamy. You don’t want what God wants, you want what you want, because it feels nice and tolerant and comfortable about how good and faithful you think you are. Well for me, I am not nice, I am not tolerant, and I will struggle against you and whatever you and your ilk put forward even if someone has to die in that struggle.

        Homophobia in itself is a nonsensical word coined by GODLESS CULTURAL MARXISTS whose aim is to destabilize Western Society by destroying the institution of marriage along with many of its institutions. You may deny this, because you are deluded with your own lies about who Jesus is, what He taught, His Purpose, and what little you know about what the Church taught- you probably think you don’t need to go to church to be good. And that Jesus was just a “good moral teacher”. Or that you can be good without the “intolerant homophobic patriarchal church men from the past.”

        Homophobia is presumably used with Greek root words “homos” meaning “the same” and “phobos” meaning “fear” So if put together, I’d say the ones who are homophobic are the ones who refuse to be the same as the heterosexuals- the normal people who were around before godless Sodomites started living loud and proud with their false idols of social justice and so forth.

      • Michael Frost says:

        Ioannes, Have you checked out what approved RC sexual manuals are saying today about heterosexual married sodomy? Last time I went to the local traditionalist, conservative, orthodox RC bookstore (a small one that seems to try really hard to stock only officially approved materials) with my RC girlfriend, I checked out the “Sex” section. Thinking there were at least 3 books that were specially dedicated to a complete RC “theology of the body” sexuality. Each was published after 2000. Each gave the RC Church’s teaching fully opposing masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, sex changes, prostitution, pornography, rape, pedophilia, sterilization, and artificial birth control. Yet all 3 indicated that RC married couples could fully engage in oral and anal sodomy, but only as foreplay, as long as the end result was vaginal intercourse that is fully open to conception. My RC girlfriend blushed when I read the sections to her. I was more than a bit pleasantly surprised that RCs appear to be fully up with sodomy within prescribed marital limits in 2012! :)

  2. Note, one sits (the female like), and one stands, (the male type). Did I say that? Aye, I just did! A mockery of male and female roles and the creational! “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature (“nephesh, translated soul in Gen. 2:7, nephesh or soul, implies self-conscious life. Note, Gen. 1: 27. See also Romans 1: 18-32!

  3. Btw, the word “homophobic” is thankfully being challenged by/in definition (use) and in historical etymology! And of course St. Paul was not a so-called homophobic, but a Jewish man and first-century Pharisee, and of course the Apostle to the Gentiles, in the first-century Church.

    • It simply amazes me how the Word of God is either left out, or simply historically and theologically (really non-theological) attacked today on so many issues, especially the sexual mores by people in the visible church. Text’s like Paul’s 1 Cor. 6: 9-20, noting verse 9 especially. Simply by Christian position & theology the body of the believer has a sanctity and is holy: because washed & justified “in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” (verse 11) Noting the logic & theology of Paul in verses 15-18, etc. Because the body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit, which is “in” us, and from God, we as believers are not our own! There is really no way out or around these verses of Paul!

      • And, lets, see a literal translation of 1 Cor. 6: 9, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous ones will not inherit God’s Kingdom, Be not deceived, neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effeminate nor homosexuals.”, etc… “will inherit the Kingdom of God.” (Verse 10) These are the words of St. Paul, and the revelation of God! Like it or lump it this is the Holy Scripture!

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        I note your apparently strong feelings expressed with exclamation marks Robert! Interesting to see you’ve quoted St Paul who apparently as Saul, never met Jesus. Equally when it comes to historical etymology, “Robert” isn’t Irish however as my middle namesake is Robert, descended over our generations from my South Welsh king of the Britons Prince Rhys ap Tewdwr Caucasian cousin, (illegitimate heretic?) “Christian” Crowned Duke of Normandy, Defender of the Faith, Supreme Governor of the Church of England Elizabethan Munster FitzGeraldine Desmond Rebellion entrepreneur soldier Sir Robert Tynte of Wraxhall, Somerset, Youghal & Kilcredan Parishes, co. Cork, there’s potential sins of ommission, commission & other possible, probable errors eg translation, transcription in your subsequent posted Comments? Again, where is Christ, Jesus in that?

      • @Matt: Yes, as a conservative and evangelical Anglican priest/presbyter, and certainly expressing the desire of the pastor-teacher, I simply must press my strong and real feelings against sin especially! I mean WE are all in this together! And btw, you are of course begging the question and issue, remarkably so! Sad!

        And in case you have not figured it out Saul/Paul was the same Jewish/Christian man! And mostly certainly Saul/Paul met the Risen “Christ Jesus”! To seek to diminsh in some way or kind, or make Paul’s encounter with, as Paul loves to say, “Christ Jesus”, the glorified Man, and still Incarnate.. is simply grave theological and also simply personal error!

        “… for my family, my kin of the flesh: Israelites they are, and to them are due the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Torah, the worship, the promises; of them were the patriarchs, and from them is he messiah in the flesh – who is over all, and whom God blessed, forever . . . for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable.”

        Saul (Paul) of Tarsus, Letter to the community in Rome, 9: 3-5 ; 11: 29.

      • Ioannes says:

        Dear Fr. Robert. (Before, I used to call you “irishanglican” but today, I make an exception.)

        You cannot truly preach towards the sodomites. You can try, but we know what God does to those who are rotten to the core. You may try to get them out of that infernal city, but they don’t want to go, it seems.

      • Michael Frost says:

        Fr Robert, I think this issue is both dogmatic and pastoral. As you point out, the dogmatic comes from both scripture and tradition (in both cases in both the OT and NT books & resulting traditions). Believing Jews and Christians must accept what was written about the immorality of sexual misconduct. But on the pastoral level, Christians must also accept ALL of what St. Paul wrote in ALL of his respective lists of seriously inappropriate behavior. 1 Cor 6 is just one of many such lists. We all must keep in mind all of the problematic activities.

        Christians cannot and should not “throw stones” (figuratively speaking) at homosexuals, and we should not treat them any worse or differently than we do other sinners, like fornicators and adulterers!

        I like the way this is dealt with in Hard Sayings of the Bible (Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, & Brauch, IVP Academic (1 Volume Ed., 1996)). See their discussion of 1 Cor 6:9-10. They also discuss the lists in Gal 5:19-21, Eph 5:3-5, and Col 3:5-9. (They also add Luke 18:18-27, and probably should’ve added Rom 1:18-32, though they refer to Rom 1:27. I’d also add Rev 22:15.) As they point out, after reading ALL the lists carefully, ALL Christians are convicted of their sin and know in their heart of hearts that they have fallen short!

        I do think RCs must be esp. careful when addressing homosexuality and sexual sins. The RC CCC makes a lot of things clear. The masturbator, fornicator, homosexual, adulterer, and artificial birth control user are in equal serious moral jeopardy. And there are a lot more masturbators, fornicators, and birth controllers than there are homosexuals! So before throwing our words like “sodomite”, the RC should make sure his hands are clean (pun intended!). :)

        Sadly, the cultural and political issues tied to homosexuality (the desire for legally-mandated acceptance in all its forms) can make this specific issue more problematic than say adulterers (for whom there doesn’t appear to be much of a cultural or political lobby–yet!).

        But I can’t wait to see how polygamy plays out in nations that legalize homosexual marriage. Or incest. If the only criteria for marriage is to love someone else or others, then pretty much any one or more living human beings, including parents and siblings, would be acceptable. The homosexual marriage advocates hate being forced to specify where they draw the “line” and “why”.

      • Ioannes says:

        Dear Michael Frost:

        I am aware of what the Church considers mortal sin, and I am obedient to her teachings. What is dangerous are those say that what is sin is not sin, and spread so much lies. Where is the outrage? Why has there been tolerance of this subculture when it should have no place at all in a Christian society? maybe indeed it is no longer a Christian society, and there seems to be a preparation for something.

        A sodomite is a sodomite. I just have not found anyone in the news to be such a proud masturbator who declares to the world to marry their hands nor have I heard people in church saying that Jesus loves the onanist, and tolerates their self-defilement.

        On the other hand, I do hear much about proud fornicators who get treated like some conquering hero and I do as well dislike them as much as the homosexual, it’s just that on this blog, Fr. Stephen Smuts has yet to show an entry about the sin of fornication and how it spreads- (it already has become manageable, if one considers the ease of encountering pornography not just on the internet, but in mainstream society), so no real chance to speak against people whose vanity and hedonism is often mistaken for “love”. It seems as if the whole world has already accepted it, and no faithful Christian will truly do. We are not of this Earth, though we fall constantly. We must get up and have courage to do battle against those who revel in ruin and evil.

        We must rebel and resist against this.

      • Michael Frost says:

        Ioannes, Sinners are both your fellow man and fellow Christian. We should respect their human dignity. And Jesus warned us all about anger and being angry with our brother. You use some pretty loaded language. That comes across more like an angry screed than a respectful reproach to an erring brother. I certainly wouldn’t call my brother “swine”, unless I was perfect and could throw stones at others. Of course, I’m not and can’t. So that leaves us with prayer for ourselves and all others.

        Or take “sodomite” and “sodomy”. Per my RC CCC (English, 2nd Ed.), those two words are NOT used. Paras. 2337-2400 cover human sexuality, marriage, children. Paras. 2357-2359 cover homosexuality. The document condemns lust (2351), masturbation (2352, though with some critical exceptions that might apply to a lot of people?), fornication (2353), pornography (2354), prostitution (2355), rape (2356), homosexuality (2357), and adultery (2380-81), plus divorce (2382-86), polygamy (2387), incest (2388), free unions (2390), and “trial marriage” (2391).

        When it comes to specific sex acts, it talks about “homosexual acts” for homosexuals (2357) and “homosexual practices” (2396). Then for appropriate expression of sexuality: “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses….” (2361) and “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place….” (2362) When a document is and can be that explicit, wherever necessary, I think it most instructive that no specific limitation (other than to final openness to conception, paras. 2366-2379 & 2398-99) is mandated by the RC CCC. So heterosexual marital sodomy, as foreplay, does appear to be within current RC marital guidelines. In such cases, are they “sodomites” practicing “sodomy”? If not, why not?

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        Finally Michael after the above rants & raves of insulting, angry, hateful, hippocritical grumpy older men, I sense, see some hopeful words of reason as a good shepherd out of the valley of death & destruction by actually asking my educated intellect a question. It seems at this time that defining our terms is an essential requirement. Your use of those words “the State” intrigues me as I guess you’re referring to our post Treaty of Westphalia Eurocentric, ethnocentric, capitalist world where after 65 years, all my conscious lifetime, (my memories start with the troubles in 1967, I was born in ’64), Palestine was recognised in a two State solution. Meanwhile, here on Larrakia lands, we whitefellas continue the international scamming fallacy of “Australia” from the “USA” & “UK” legal fictions?

        I’ll also put in a Caveat at this time insofar I had to ethically answer an ICU Dr last night on my dying friend’s request not to be resusitated so my mind is pre-occupied and exhausted.

      • Ioannes says:

        Dear Michael Frost:

        Let’s not forget that there are many things the CCC doesn’t say, explicitly and there are things that Scripture does not as well say, such as the existence of the Khmer people and the planet Mars, for example, but those things exist independent of Scripture or The Catechism, so there must be a way to be prudent about trying to find loopholes and examining intentions and ways of realizing them.

        Anyway, regarding Sodomy, the Church teaches that the proper sexual act, the ultimate aim of which is to make new life, not just the pleasure in the same manner one eats for sustenance, and not because the act of eating or the sense of taste is pleasing- not to say to appreciate those are also necessarily evil, but in conjunction to your anecdote about those books on “Theology of the Body” I can only be at my most generous by saying those books are being lax, though I know not exactly to what point. Regardless, they contribute to the laxity of attitudes towards sex- sex is not the center of our Universe, but it certainly is a part of it, I understand that- and YET for some people, it is the end-all, be-all, enough to state that homosexuals have a right to be homosexuals- considering how we in the West attribute our laws to God (If we credit the Romans, killing infants would not be murder before a certain age) We cannot truly believe that the right of homosexuality isn’t anything but a sin, can we? You can argue that some people are born with same-sex attraction, but attraction is not the same as buggery, which is sodomy regardless if it is with a man or with a woman. Now, these people with same-sex attraction, I understand ought to be treated with the compassion that is often misdirected or perverted or hijacked, by proud homosexuals and their sympathizers. The result of this perversion would be: “West Point chapel hosts first same sex wedding”!

        These people have sex at the center of their lives, as if their identities were bound with their understanding of their own sexuality. How do I connect sex with sexuality? If sexuality is about identity, what is sexual identity without sexual expression? That’s asexuality. (By the way, I have yet to find news of asexuals banning Pride Parades or any public celebration of any one sexuality the same way atheists want to ban Christmas.) So there’s really no other point for these homosexuals to ramble on about equality and rights” when they’re hiding the the ugly truth that they want to be considered normal for something abnormal. (What is normal? What most people are; homosexuals are not “most people” and so they are not “normal”) There are groups that monitor shows on television, groups that rate how much positive representation of homosexuals and their lifestyles there are in those shows- never mind the sort of reach homosexuals have in the liberal media! So, if you stand against homosexuals, the proud and self-identifying ones I mean, they’ll send GLAAD to you and vandalize your church or attack your clergy and desecrate Jesus Christ during the Mass.

        I tell you, stones are too good for those people, They are not even worthy to be struck by stones from holy hands, but are only worthy of fire from Gehenna. Those things seem worse than my hurtful, hurtful words against our peaceful, tolerant, innocent, and thin-skinned Marcionist and his family-oriented homosexual friends. It’s a good thing I’m not the one sending people to where they belong. (By the way, did you hear that scientific study from the University of Texas about how detrimental homosexual “parents” are in raising children? Homosexuals tried to suppress the findings, and there was a court battle over that. I don’t know how it ended, but I’m not surprised if the person who conducted the study was shamed and terrorized by sodomites.)

        Going back to your anecdote about sodomy and “Theology of the Body”, etc. I would rather be cautious and put forward marital asceticism as the surest way. Which means to say, marital chastity, not necessarily marital celibacy, though if people are going to be celibate anyways, by bother marrying, if there already is another calling for the celibate life? Now, the sort of liberalization within the Church has made me ever-suspicious of what is comfortable and easy, because THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO GLORY. I suppose the Theology of the Body or whoever was making interpretations from those Papal lectures, are either misinterpreting, trying to be generous, or are one of those rebellious nuns who suddenly are offended when the Vatican wants to inspect their orders for any unorthodox goings-on, like pagan mother-goddess rituals. These people probably teach at Catholic schools, by the way.

        If those books were actually written by Pope John Paul II, I’m going to lump it together with the Koran-kissing incident. Great PR move, terrible theology. (Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger probably placed his palm on his face during that moment.)

        By my own conservative interpretation, an end cannot justify any immoral means so “sodomy for the sake of new life” makes as much sense as “abortion for the sake of the mother” – What about my own attitude that seems to justify violence against the enemies of Christ? If “Sodomy for the sake of new life” is orthodox, then it’s easier to justify violence in word or deed against the enemies of Christ.

        Regarding my angry screed: If it is true that the end cannot justify the immoral means, we are posed with the question: Is killing a sin? God ordered men to have killed, and God cannot order men to sin. And if we take literally God’s commandment from Jesus to “turn the other cheek” then it would be fair for the Pope to disband the Swiss guards and to have no armed forces within the Vatican, even the gendarmerie, making it easier for terrorists and violent, godless anarchist to lay waste to the Vatican- Michael Frost, you are orthodox, so I trust you know about 1204 A.D. and the Fourth Crusade- that kind of thing will happen. So clearly, killing is not a sin in certain cases, but murder is a sin, because it is unlawful killing. I consider my stance against homosexuals as being justified, because I am outraged, and no one else wishes to be outraged- everyone wants peace when there can be no peace. Peace on Earth is a lie, because what they mean by this “peace” is through human, godless means, like the tower of Babel. Blessed are the peacemakers, when they bring peace through the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, and not the effeminate false idol crafted by liberals who loves sinners the way they are.

        By the way, were there Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur on those books? The orthodoxy and faithfulness of those books can be determined by those two things, but not by those alone, I don’t think. I don’t know what diocese you were when you saw those books, but if you say Los Angeles, I’m going to laugh.

      • Michael Frost says:

        Ioannes, I assume you’re an RC. And that as such, you fully agree with, respect, support, and attempt to follow the RC CCC? As such your words directed at and against homosexuals appear to me to be a most clear breach of para. 2358:

        “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

        These are the clear words from your Church and its Magesterium to YOU. Your apparent deliberate violation of them would appear to mean you are refusing to remove the plank in your own eye. For you are to accept and follow these words. But you appear to want to disregard them. If so, does that make you a “cafeteria-style” RC? You like and follow only what you like and follow?

        And in regard to marital sexuality and the “theology of the body”, please review para. 2362-63:

        “Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure…spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment…within the limits of just moderation. … union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spuses themselves….”

        Thus joy and pleasure are both good and spouses can seek it out themselves in whatever way they please (that is willfully and voluntarily, within the limit of just moderation, and, always, allowing for fecundity as the final culmination of each act of genital contact/sexual intercourse).

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        I sincerely look forward to Ioannes Reply Comments because Ioannes clearly has an educated intellect. I don’t know yet that if that is self educated or if Ioannes actually has a Spiritual Director, Pastoral Carer? I sense religious zeal which can be beneficial as an activation energy but I intuitively sense that isn’t ultimately sustainable and as Michael has, my mind has to seriously question some of Ioannes’ logic. Accountability, responsibility for our actions will be an interesting process into our respective journeys?

  4. Matthew Fowler says:

    Naturally your entitled to expressing your opinions. I’ve more important concerns right now with another in ICU? May your hard, harsh Old Testament God go with you both in peace.

    • Ioannes says:

      There is only one God, you Marcionist.

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        If as you claimed Ioannes, there is only one God, why have your Comments seemed so judgementally Old Testament and why haven’t you been quoting Christ Jesus as it seems you also to be follower of Christ? Likewise, why are you so quick to judge & lable your fellow man or woman or brother or sister in Christ?

      • William Tighe says:

        You arr right; he is an utter Marcionite, since for Christians, as for St Paul and Jesus himself, “the Old Testament God” is none other than the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I suppose we see in what we may well term a “Marcionite revival” how an attempt to justify sexual perversion leads to intellectual confusion ans incoherence.

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        Actually I’m not attempting to justify anything William, rather better comprehend Ioannes’ strong feelings & logic. I find it fascinating how you both seem bent on painting a particular picture of who or how I am. Naturally your opinions aren’t evidence just it seems you mascarade your assertions as evidence, falatious logic from my mind’s views, you all seem to be taking things far too seriously and you too William haven’t quoted Jesus which me wonder again, why?

      • Ioannes says:

        So quick to judge? Because I do not wish to commit the logical fallacy of slothful induction. Logic is a means, not an end- you can come to the truth without logic, because Truth is a person, not an abstract concept.

        You are not my brother, nor are these women my sisters- they are the enemies of Christ! You dare to say that Christ had no enemies even among nations? Who put him on the cross? YOU DID! Your homosexual friends did! You all mockingly worship Him! You are now like Caiaphas pretending to be a champion of Christ!? Spare us your false piety, agent of Satan! You and your homosexual activist friends are a brood of vipers! Shame on all of you! But in truth you don’t understand shame! You are a part of a world that knows no shame nor guilt nor sin other than what your Cultural Marxist ideologues consider “social injustice”!

        Homosexuality is a sin. If you wish to deny this, then you are either blind, a fool, or an immensely evil person. Why? The Church has taught this; the Hebrew sages have taught this- even Islam taught this!; this is not the creation of men, but rather a Law given down from God Almighty; were it the creation of men, it would have been much pragmatic to have adapted the ways of pagans like the Greeks who violated children, (sadly, homosexual priests who subscribe to your sort of liberalism have done this! And yet people like you would like to portray this as the tenet of our faith!) the Egyptians who committed incest; the Phoenicians who sacrificed infants, The Celts who ate men, among many other heathen nations.

        You belong to a society where children are sexualized; where children are murdered inside their mothers; and women lie with women, and men lie with men. That is NOT a Christian society, you are NOT a Christian, and you may go to Hell, despite your cries of “Lord! Lord!” and no matter how loudly you shout “Alleluia!”

        If I did quote Jesus Christ, it would not matter because you already have in your mind a sort of Jesus Christ who allows sinners to remain sinners and to let them rejoice in their sin because they identify themselves with the sin- and that God made them that way- “Homosexuality” is a fundamental identity of homosexuals who do not see their condition as a sin. What is homosexuality, if not the sexual expression of one person towards another of the same sex? It is a perversion! You may even be the sort of person who would allow to entertain the notion that Jesus Christ Himself was a sinner and is not really who he claims he is- the old atheist argument that Christianity is a creation of people who came after, an implicit denial of what Jesus said, that He has a Church, and that He is the Son of God, and that He died for the destruction of sin!

        You would throw this away for masturbatory delusions of a God who tolerates sin rather than wipes it off the face of existence! A disgusting doctrine! It is not Christ, for Christ spoke of Gehenna, that many will be called, to Him but only few are chosen- Lesbians, priestesses, abortionists, atheists, and so forth may call themselves “Christian” but the truth is that they are as Christian as I am a Muslim- they are NOT! They espouse lies and their filth spreads forth and poisons Christendom! They are the whores of secularism!

        I will struggle against them, for that is the purpose God had put me on Earth! I will oppose you! I will oppose your world view, violently, if it comes to that!

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        I’m wondering Ioannes if http://www.zimbio.com/Public+speaking/articles/14/How+Talk+People+Will+Listen+Steve+Brown could help your mind formulate your Reply Comments?

      • Ioannes says:

        And finally, no matter how much I rant, you will not change. I know this. No entreaties, no reasoning, no logic can change a determined sinner. So if you’re so familiar with fallacies, you would understand that Argumentum Ad Baculum is not always a fallacy, and that words become so cheap- the only way left would be a violent solution. You say it’s not Christ-like? Christ was violent in the Temple- the one place where actions mattered the most. He did not debate with His enemies, He did not write a single strongly-worded letter- He overturned stalls and whipped the wicked.

        Surely, you will use the “No True Christian” fallacy against Jesus Christ when it came to violence. That’s how dishonest people like you can be. And you will pay the consequences of your evil.

  5. Matthew Fowler says:

    I don’t real concerns that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy has been resorted to above … far too many times?

    • @Matt: I agree with the theological “Marcionist” call of both Ioannes and William (Dr.) Tighe. But note, my short exegesis was not from the OT, but from St. Paul’s 1 Cor. 6: 9-20. But of course Paul is always Saul, and the Jewish Man of God! And indeed as Michael has noted, there are many other NT Texts here! See his additional text of Rev. 22: 15, and though somewhat apocalyptic, the connection is obvious. Note, I would add, Heb. 13: 4! And the logic here is not “fallacy”, but revelational…as is both the OT and NT, on sexual mores and God’s Will and Moral Righteousness!

    • Michael Frost says:

      Matthew, Could you please let us know what limits or criteria you think the State should use when allowing “marriage”? Do you believe there are any legitimate limits? And if any, what? For example, is love the only criteria? Can we “love” anyone we want and many people at same time? Can someone marry their brother or sister? Mom or dad? Can someone love more than one adult? Is polygamy acceptable for State marriage? Do the individuals have to be at least of some age? 18? 16? I can never get much of a straight answer in these areas, esp. from activists, who seem to just want to move the ball down the field every time and have a “we must have this today but we’ll be wanting more in the future” attitude. Where does the State draw the line? A line? No line?

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        Apologies Michael, my mind, exhausted after 24/7 Primary Care over the last 5.5years & intensified over the last week fearing lost life or limb, I missed my Reply here, please see it is above, with respects, Matthew

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        Clearly as I’ve sought in good faith to state Michael, we really need to very seriously, carefully, respectfully define our terms ie when you posterity published online above, “the State”, which “State” did your mind actually mean? eg see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        Likewise Michael you used that word “marriage” as if everyone has the same cultural background agreed definition, I invite you to read or refresh, reread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage to quickly see that there are a range of perspectives. Another example here on Larrakia lands is I actually don’t yet know enough language, lore, law to be able to comment however you too maybe interested in seeing, http://artsandmuseums.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/115058/Larrakia_Web_Bibliography.pdf
        “Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia”, eg Elkin, A. P. The Australian Aborigines: how to understand them. 3rd ed. Sydney :Angus and Robertson, 1954. 305.89915 ELK referred to “Social groups, sections and moieties, alternate and irregular marriages; Kinship avoidance, taboos, methods of obtaining a wife, marriage of old men and young girls, pirauru relationship; Totemism; Secret life and initiation – missionary problems; Meaning and social function of rites; Philosophy and beliefs, increase rites”?

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        I then saw from, http://artsandmuseums.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/115058/Larrakia_Web_Bibliography.pdf
        “Parkhouse, T. A.. ‘Native tribes of Port Darwin and its neighbourhood’. Australasian Association for the
        Advancement of Science. Report, v.6, 1895; 638-647.
        [Territorial boundaries of Larrakia, Waggait, Wulnar, Awarra, Berrigurrk Awinnmul, Aggrakundi; Camping
        arrangements of Larrakia, marriage arrangements, life cycle, marriage corrobberrie, initiation ceremony, sickness and disease, burial rites; Ceremony of circumcision among the Aggrakundi; Weapons, implements, cicatrization and decoration, smoke and hand signalling; Map shows tribal distribution in area].”

      • Michael Frost says:

        Matthew, We don’t need PhDs in regard to “the State” or “marriage” in this discussion. I asked you a simple question. I’d just like the courtesy of an honest response. “The State” means the lawful civil authority you live under that sets the conditions for “marriage”. “Marriage” is the lawful union prescribed by the civil authority. So for me, in the USA, State of Iowa, our civil authority (by our State Supreme Court) has “legalized” homosexual “marriage” for one man and one man and one woman and one woman. My question to you was simple. What is your criteria for “marriage”? Is it just love between any person(s)? What limits, if any, do you accept for “marriage”? Do you believe people should be allowed to “marry” anyone they love, including multiple people simultaneously (polygamy)? Can brother “marry” sister? A mother her son? A father his daughter? Can a 65-year-old man marry a 12-year-old girl? A 14-year-old boy a 55-year-old woman? If there are limits, what are they and where do they come from?

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        You’re right Michael, I don’t have a PhD. I did graduate 1988 BSc hence in 1980 Year 10 I was first exposed to Scientific Method from First Principles. I invite all Readers, Commenters here to consider using both when making claims, assertions without clearly demonstrating their necessary basis v unnecessary bias?
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        I then also happened to see, http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2012/12/04/Anti-gay_therapy_ban_blocked_by_judge_823141.html “Lawyers for the state argue that outlawing reparative therapy is appropriate because it would protect young people from a practice that has been rejected as unproven and potentially harmful by all the mainstream mental health associations.” While “State” is simple apparently for your mind Michael, there are many, varied “states” my mind has to contemplate, consider, respect, absorb, accept, acknowledge, address in any attempt I have to seriously respectfully redress what your mind seeks of me Michael. I hope sincerely, on my Honour as one of HM’s Queen’s Scouts & Baden-Powell Awarded Rover Scout by Royal Certificates, your inner nobility will too accept in the Spirit intended.

  6. Matt: I am the older man here, at 63, but not really a “grumpy” old man, as just an old RMC, Royal Marine Commando. Btw Ioannes is younger than both of us!

    • Matthew Fowler says:

      Seriously then, what is Ioannes’ excuse for being so apparently mean, nasty and a fair few other things?
      Likewise Robert, given you were a RMC, you either killed or were prepared to, given that’s clearly against both Old & New Testament Commandments, what were you thinking, feeling to want to take another’s sacred life? What happened in your childhood, adolescence, young adulthood defining moments to conclude that was to be your future? Do you feel any conviction or other feelings as a result?

      Genuinely interested in your lived experience, Matthew

      • Ioannes says:

        See, talking about how “life is sacred” but you’re probably supportive of abortion.

      • Matt: Michael has said it well, I too come from a basic military family (Irish). My father (a fighter pilot.. spits), great uncles, uncles, all fought in WW2. Even a few aunts were nurses. RIP all! Indeed my lived experience of combat, went from the Nam, attached to the American Marine Force Recon (1968) as a RMC, to Gulf War 1. I had broken time and service, but I was what they call a mustang, enlisted to officer (ten years active, and retired from the RMC reserves, as a Capt.) And I lived and taught in Israel (after the military) in the late 90′s. I am pro-Israel! So no pacifism here! And here I will say no more!

      • Ioannes says:

        Jesus Christ was not a Pacifist. Pacifism encourages good men to do nothing when evil men do anything. Pacifism is not a virtue. Although one is blessed to be a peace-maker. Pacifism is false peace. There can only be peace through Christ, and ultimately, by following Him, not only through death, but resurrection.

      • Matthew Fowler says:
    • Michael Frost says:

      Matthew, I was USAF (Desert Shield/Storm). My ex-wife was USAF. My father USMC (Korea). Two of my uncles US Army (WW II). My son is USN (2011 Libyan activity). We serve the lawful civil authority to protect and defend our nation. Doing so isn’t “murder”, which is sinful and prohibited by God’s law (like lying, stealing, adultery and homosexuality). But being EO, we accept that any time anyone has to kill (note the word, not murder), there are significant consequences psychologically and spiritually to the individual. Engaging in the lawful killing during war in the military is something one should discuss with his priest confessor/spiritual father.

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        I therefore have a simple question for you all. What made an illegitimate Duke of Normandy legitimately kill (murder, regicide) the last legitimate leading, effective elected English King of England?

        I ask you all this in good faith because, personally, my mother’s mother’s Norwood family are reputed to be descended from this our Anglo-Saxon apical ancestor,
        https://www.google.com.au/search?q=norwood+king+harold+godwinson&oq=norwood+king+harold+godwinson&aqs=chrome.0.57.16155&sugexp=chrome,mod=3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        As we all may well be aware, HM is the latest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy thus again, what makes an illegitimate Duke of Normandy less than a millenium ago, legitimate today?

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        With Prince William likely to become Duke of Normandy, King William V within a millennium it appears we will be going from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_II “In 1066, he entertained an embassy from the illegitimate Duke of Normandy Guillaume II, Guillaume le Bâtard, (after his successful invasion of England he came to be known as William the Conqueror) which had been sent to obtain his blessing for the Norman conquest of England. This he gave to them, gifting to them a papal ring, the Standard of St. Peter,[4] and a papal edict to present to the English clergy saying that William was given the papal blessing for his bid to the throne. These favours were instrumental in the submission of the English church and people following the Battle of Hastings.”

      • Michael Frost says:

        Matthew, I have no idea what all this extraneous material is about nor how it has any relevance, whatsoever, to the subject at hand. As I asked earlier,

        “I asked you a simple question. I’d just like the courtesy of an honest response. “The State” means the lawful civil authority you live under that sets the conditions for “marriage”. “Marriage” is the lawful union prescribed by the civil authority. So for me, in the USA, State of Iowa, our civil authority (by our State Supreme Court) has “legalized” homosexual “marriage” for one man and one man and one woman and one woman. My question to you was simple. What is your criteria for “marriage”? Is it just love between any person(s)? What limits, if any, do you accept for “marriage”? Do you believe people should be allowed to “marry” anyone they love, including multiple people simultaneously (polygamy)? Can brother “marry” sister? A mother her son? A father his daughter? Can a 65-year-old man marry a 12-year-old girl? A 14-year-old boy a 55-year-old woman? If there are limits, what are they and where do they come from?”

      • Ioannes says:

        Dear, Michael Frost:

        It is likely you will be called “illogical” and “Avoiding the question” for refusing to march to the beat that will lead you to agree to their conclusions of whatever it is they’re pushing forward. (In this case, sodomitic pseudogamy)

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        Actually Michael what I’ve been sharing is clearly central to a whole lot of what “State”, “Sovereign”, (spiritual sanctity) “Marriage”, etc. we’ve been perhaps far too casually communicating on. Sadly I just have to accept you “simply” can, will not? After 5.5years of Primarily Caring for another who not only swam for your 1980 US Olympic Swim Team [who didn't get to go to Moscow because Russia had invaded Afghanistan now the international scamming legal fictions of the "USA" 4 Jul 1776, "UK" 1 Jan 1801 & "Australia" 1 Jan 1901 are there as a part of that so called "Coalition of the Willing", "War on Terror", "collatoral damage", dead men, women & children], helped Presidents Reagan & Clinton’s Presidential Campaigns in MA & north east USA then my own Australian Parliamentary Kingston Candidate Campaign 2007, now lying fighting for his life aged 49yo in ICU Intensive Care because it seems your United States’ people don’t care. [I'm physically (& financially) exhausted so not yet able to think clearly myself at this critical time so "simply" seek your empathy and compassion without sympathy in your negatively judgemental posterity published Comments here online for all to see.]

        I just saw, http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStories/2012/12/05/Final_go-ahead_for_new_royal_law_823219.html “The legislation will also end the bar on anyone in the line of succession marrying a Roman Catholic.” As a result of those events from the Battle of the Boyne & 1707 Succession Legislation …

        “January 16 – The Treaty (or Act) of Union of the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England is ratified by the Scottish Parliament.
        March 19 – The Act of Union with Scotland is ratified by the English Parliament.
        May 1 – The Acts of Union become law, uniting the Parliaments of the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland to form the Parliament of the Kingdom of Great Britain.”

        I genuinely wonder therefore if in actual fact you all really do know why, what you all so clearly quickly judge others in what they may or may not believe, comprehend, understand, etc?

  7. Matthew Fowler says:

    As we all may well be aware, HM is the latest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy thus again, what makes an illegitimate Duke of Normandy less than a millenium ago, legitimate today?

  8. Matthew Fowler says:

    Ioannes maybe pleased to see, “Tasmania’s 15-member Legislative Council voted down the bill 8-6 on Thursday night after it had become the first to be passed in an Australian lower house last month.
    Success for the legislation would have made Tasmania the first state in the country to allow gay marriage.
    “Today in Tasmania we came closer to marriage equality than we have ever been in Australia before,” Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said.
    “Those MLCs who are against seem to be more concerned about the constitutionality of this bill than about same-sex couples marrying, which I think shows we’ve won the debate even though we’ve lost the bill.

    Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/tas-gay-marriage-debate-rolls-on/story-e6frfku9-1226482645460#ixzz2EAFaH8eo

    Michael has asked me above what do I personally think, I’ve had to deal with a fair few Intensive Care, including ethical dilemma decisions about end of life over this last weekend so I’ve not exactly been in the best of positions to comfortably, easily really consider my response. My personal experience is that my parents have both married twice, my father married my step mother twice after 19years divorce so mine is a complexed personal marriage experience. I was Engaged to be Married 1988 but the Wedding machine took over and everything started to happen too quickly so when I asked my Fiance if we could go back to girlfriend & boyfriend for a little while longer, she said, either we get married or we don’t see or speak with each other again. As I’d personally already had too much emotional upheaval and blackmail in my life, I didn’t feel that was a good basis to get married so I decided it was better not to, “simply”.

    For me, marriage is a sacred institution which is seriously considered and once undertaken, for life.

    I realise that after every wedding comes a marriage and all fairy stories end with the marriage but that’s just my personal indoctrination, personal perspective. I certainly don’t expect others to believe what I do but I’m happy to meet minds and explore what we have in common then what we don’t …

    I hope that helps share a bit of my current comprehension, perspective, over to you fellas & Ioannes’ wife?

    • Michael Frost says:

      Matthew, Since you won’t have a simple, straightforward discussion that stays on topic, there isn’t any point in continuing. You appear to have some issues in life (don’t we all, myself included), so I’ll keep you in my prayers. (I’ll pray for Ioannes, too, so that he overcomes his…issues…with homosexuals that violate his Church’s own Catechism. I noticed he wouldn’t respond to the direct language from the RC CCC about respect and dignity of persons specifically addressed about homosexuals.)

      • Ioannes says:

        I was fine about leaving gay folks alone a while ago in the same way I was fine about not harassing the blind and other disabled people- Then came their fight for the right to be “married” to each other. It’s as if people without legs suddenly started beating people with their crutches and ramming their wheelchairs against others in their demand to be recognized as “normal” when in fact, they are not. They are unfortunate in their conditions, but we are not a society of invalids, are we? If so, what happens to the blind leading the blind?

        Some people just call this “difficulty” towards being compassionate to people who already attack you for what you believe, but then you realize that sin is never to be reasoned, negotiated, nor compromised with. It’s one thing when the penitent wants to leave their sin behind, but it’s another when they want their sin enshrined as a “right.” That’s when you fight against them.

        As for the CCC, if you want me to respond directly, I will try but you probably will not like it.

        You wrote:
        “Per my RC CCC (English, 2nd Ed.), those two words are NOT used (sodomy/sodomite). Paras. 2337-2400 cover human sexuality, marriage, children. Paras. 2357-2359 cover homosexuality. ”

        I respond:
        Those words are not used in the same way you Orthodox are no longer “schismatic” and “heretical” – but if we look at, for example, your Mark of Ephesus, we could either agree with him, and suddenly Rome declares itself heretical; disagree with him, making the Orthodox position heretical, or forget he existed, putting Rome and Orthodoxy in a vague goo of ecumenism. I am a Roman Catholic, and Mark of Ephesus, one of your “pillars of orthodoxy” is wrong. Regardless of his view of the Roman Church and the Pope- I think he’d disagree with your understanding of sodomy and sodomites.

        You wrote:
        “The document condemns lust (2351), masturbation (2352, though with some critical exceptions that might apply to a lot of people?), fornication (2353), pornography (2354), prostitution (2355), rape (2356), homosexuality (2357), and adultery (2380-81), plus divorce (2382-86), polygamy (2387), incest (2388), free unions (2390), and “trial marriage” (2391).”

        I respond:
        What do you mean critical exceptions? You mean if you’re mentally ill? If they’re coerced? If you are in fact a person who freely commits regularly the sin, condemned in article #2352, you either must admit you’re mentally ill (meaning it was not a free act), or you are in fact a sodomite and you need to repent. If you’re mentally ill, then you must strive for mental wellness or you are being disingenuous about your condition being a problem by the nature of its sinfulness. Will you suddenly pretend that a sin is no longer a sin?

        The three conditions for sin to be determined as sin is as such: You must know it is a sin, you must consent to committing the sin, and it must be a grave matter.

        These sodomites would prefer you do not call them sinners, but at the same time they refuse to be called mentally ill; and so they go on by their own consensus to committing their sins, and pretend that it is not a grave matter because they have refused to call it a sin or refuse to be called mentally ill for their sin, which they knowingly commit to and attack the Church for teaching it as such- a sin. That is what makes them sodomites. They willfully turn their backs on God and attack Him by attacking His Church and offering false worship at best and idolatry at worst.

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        I have to be impressed by your almost Nazi logic Ioannes insofar it seems, sadly in my mind, that your’s is a form of fascist like extreme Christianity logic when it comes to people with a disability? Fortunately unless you die earlier, you too will be wearied by age and increasing infirmaties to the point where you too will have to deal with a whole of disabilities personally or others will have to do that themselves for you. The point being I see now you definitely have apparently very strong to extremist views to the point where I wonder, who takes care of your pastoral care and Spiritual Direction? My fear is that your brain’s logic has already robbed you of your heart so there is no love, care, compassion, empathy left so I’m struggling, seriously to see, seriously, just how or where you really follow Christ, despite your strong rhetoric strenously stating what is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

      • Michael Frost says:

        Ioannes, As per your RC CCC…

        At 2358 makes clear that homosexuals, as human beings, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every unjust sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Your language here is the opposite of this mandate to you as a RC.

        At 2352 is specific to masturbation. The critical exception: “To form an equitable judgment about the subject’s moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, firce if acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lesson, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.” Any canon lawyer of even the least competence could use this language to reduce all such acts to their minimum moral culpability. And note, this language isn’t there for fornication, adultery, homosexuality, theft, lying, murder, etc. Why is masturbation so treated? Wouldn’t all sins have such an analysis, esp. “psychological or social factors”?

      • Ioannes says:

        You wrote:
        ‘When it comes to specific sex acts, it talks about “homosexual acts” for homosexuals (2357) and “homosexual practices” (2396). Then for appropriate expression of sexuality: “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses….” (2361) and “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place….” (2362) When a document is and can be that explicit, wherever necessary, I think it most instructive that no specific limitation (other than to final openness to conception, paras. 2366-2379 & 2398-99) is mandated by the RC CCC. So heterosexual marital sodomy, as foreplay, does appear to be within current RC marital guidelines. In such cases, are they “sodomites” practicing “sodomy”? If not, why not?’

        I respond:
        Tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” and are contrary to natural law. “Homosexual acts” is sodomy, what’s your point? Would you rather call it just anal sex? Just because it’s not explicitly called “anal sex” doesn’t mean anal sex isn’t a homosexual act. But “Homosexual acts” aren’t just restricted to anal sex.

        “homosexual practices” are intrinsically evil, any and all acts, whether sexual or not, by which a human person knowingly chooses to move toward, cooperate with, reinforce, or act upon, homosexual acts and practices are themselves sins, either venial or mortal.

        Hopefully, we can agree as Christians, that the proper expression of sexuality between a man and a woman are actions which will result in a new life. A union is supposed to be fertile, not sterile. But the exceptions you are hunting for can be best described with how blessed some couples were who were thought to be sterile- the parents of St. John the Baptist, for example. Yet that’s extraordinary and supernatural. Let us not conflate the unnatural with the supernatural.

        –IF it was the case that the absence of specific limitations can give way to any interpretation, then even interpretations can have their limits before the general point is warped into self-contradiction. But since it has been said in other documents and traditional teachings of the Church that Marriage, which is the Sacramental Union between man and woman, is wholesome and chaste cannot have room for the depraved, which sodomy, ranging from mutual masturbation, oral stimulation, and anal intercourse, among many other things. The point is, if “marital sodomy” exists and is permitted, what is the limit of such a point of view? I’d say that outside a conservative understanding and interpretation of what the Catechism teaches, sin stops being sin, which we know is never the case- sin is a sin is a sin. So to answer your question, even a married couple who engages in “marital sodomy” regardless of their intentions, due to the license they assume in interpreting the Catechism, are sodomites and must be be corrected or encourage to correction.

      • Ioannes says:

        * addendum, besides Sacramental Marriage, there is also Natural Marriage, which started from Adam and Eve.

        You wrote:
        “At 2358 makes clear that homosexuals, as human beings, “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every UNJUST sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Your language here is the opposite of this mandate to you as a RC.”

        I respond:
        The fact that the article discriminates between JUST and UNJUST sign of discrimination means that there are conditions in which it is JUSTIFIABLE to discriminate against homosexuals as human beings. Considering that homosexuals are not always peaceful, loving, tolerant individuals, I’d say when they go against the institution of marriage as something between a man and a woman, I’m pretty justified in my tone.

        You wrote:
        ‘At 2352 is specific to masturbation. The critical exception: “To form an equitable judgment about the subject’s moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, firce if acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lesson, if not even reduce to a MINIMUM, MORAL CULPABILITY.” Any canon lawyer of even the least competence could use this language to reduce all such acts to their minimum moral culpability. And note, this language isn’t there for fornication, adultery, homosexuality, theft, lying, murder, etc. Why is masturbation so treated? Wouldn’t all sins have such an analysis, esp. “psychological or social factors”? ‘

        I respond:
        Minimum moral culpability does not mean absolute moral innocence. Masturbation is a mortal sin, but, as you Orthodox say, a sin is a sin. Yet from a Roman Catholic perspective, it means that a person has some responsibility for contrition and penance, and to both ask God and strive by his graced effort to break free of the sin. This may sound Semi-Pelagian, but I don’t think I’m being heretical at the notion.

      • Michael Frost says:

        Ioannes, The key words and phrases are “marital heterosexual acts/practices” and “homosexual acts/practices”. Many of these are the same specific acts/practices! “Sodomy” (your prefered word) can be both heterosexual and homosexual. If your RC CCC had wanted to ban or condemn married heterosexual “sodomy”, then it could (and should have) easily have done so; but it specifically chose NOT to say a word about it. When there is such a high level of specificity about various sexual acts and practices (e.g., lust, masturbation, pornography, fornication, adultery, incest, prostitution, polygamy, open/trial marriages, etc.), the absence clearly indicates no condemnation. It is your Church’s job to be crystal clear about what is and isn’t acceptable for married couples to do. That is the job of the RC CCC. The RC CCC makes it clear that married heterosexual “sodomy” is not condemned as long as the final outcome of the sexual activity is open to procreation. That is why the “theology of the body” sex manuals for RCs can openly discuss and accept married heterosexual oral and anal sexual foreplay, while condemning all homosexual sexual activity! If you can find me a recent papal document (say since Vatican II) that clearly and specifically condemns married heterosexual oral and anal foreplay that leads to vaginal intercourse, please share it with me.

      • Michael Frost says:

        Ioannes, As any canon lawyer would successfully argue, “minimum, moral culpability” at para. 2352 equates to “venial sin”. See para. 1862: “One commits venial sin…when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.” See 1858 for grave matter and 1859 for full knowledge & complete consent.

      • Ioannes says:

        You wrote:
        ‘ “Sodomy” (your prefered word) can be both heterosexual and homosexual.” ‘
        ———–
        Yes, I agree.
        ————-
        ‘ If your RC CCC had wanted to ban or condemn married heterosexual “sodomy”, then it could (and should have) easily have done so; but it specifically chose NOT to say a word about it. When there is such a high level of specificity about various sexual acts and practices…. the absence clearly indicates no condemnation. ‘
        ———-
        But I’ve considered sodomy to have been broader than just “homosexual acts/practices” and general sexual immorality. I mean, if the Church wanted to be less specific, the writers of the CCC would have just said “Sodomy is a sin”- okay, but if people wanted to be more specific, then they’d go on to list things in more specific manner. I don’t know if that’s a cop-out for you, or anything. Also, on a side note, is there a sort of one, authoritative “Orthodox Catechism” around, or is it naturally differing per Orthodox church?

        You wrote:
        ‘It is your Church’s job to be crystal clear about what is and isn’t acceptable for married couples to do. That is the job of the RC CCC.’
        —————–
        Yes, I agree- but I’ve been thinking, people who worry about what is and isn’t precisely acceptable for married couples to do are the ones who tend to follow the Catechism anyway, and those who don’t, probably won’t. I don’t know if that accounts for what you’d call “vagueness” in the CCC.

        You wrote:
        ‘ The RC CCC makes it clear that married heterosexual “sodomy” is not condemned as long as the final outcome of the sexual activity is open to procreation.’
        ————————
        Did you know that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are graver than, say, rape and fornication because of openness to new life/marriage/etc? But that doesn’t make rape and fornication “acceptable” or “allowed”, and so are condemned, but not equally in gravity as homosexual acts, or say, abortion- which results in automatic excommunication whether you are the woman aborting, the person who encouraged the abortion, or anyone who participates in the actual process. It all seems arbitrary, but I bet you some hardcore theologian/canon lawyer can answer the reasoning behind these things.

        You wrote:
        ‘ That is why the “theology of the body” sex manuals for RCs can openly discuss and accept married heterosexual oral and anal sexual foreplay, while condemning all homosexual sexual activity!’
        ————————
        By the way, you never did tell me if those “manuals” ever had an imprimatur or nihil obstats printed on them. Even I can write and circulate a book about how to bomb abortion clinics or how to choreograph liturgical dancing and claim it to be “Conservative Catholic Teaching” and it’s not worth anything without nihil obstat or an imprimatur from the local bishop, the CDF, or wherever.

        You wrote:
        ‘ If you can find me a recent papal document (say since Vatican II) that clearly and specifically condemns married heterosexual oral and anal foreplay that leads to vaginal intercourse, please share it with me. ‘
        ——————————
        Why does it have to be recent? I am already a loser at that condition, considering I’m the type that still hold valid Pope Pius IX’s “Syllabus Errorum” and believe priests should be required to honor the Anti-Modernist Oath! In any case, even if a pope says something as crazy as “Hey, anal sex is a-okay,” or “Pedophilia isn’t that bad” it has no consistency with the things the Church had taught throughout the centuries, and I would not think it would’ve been an infallible statement made Ex Cathedra,

      • Ioannes says:

        Oh, an addendum:

        I wrote:
        Even I can write and circulate a book about how to bomb abortion clinics or how to choreograph liturgical dancing and claim it to be “Conservative Catholic Teaching” and it’s not worth anything without nihil obstat or an imprimatur from the local bishop, the CDF, or wherever.

        By “Whatever” I meant “other valid authorities”.

        But you already know this, and I’m just splitting hairs at this point.

      • Ioannes says:

        Aha! Godwin’s Law is in effect! “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches almost surely”

        Of course, for someone who likes to talk about logic and disguising their stink, it’s nor surprise for them to suddenly use the “Reductio ad Hitlerum” fallacy, which consists of trying to refute an opponent’s view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party.

        You know… Hitler was ate sugar. I guess that makes you a Nazi as well.

        Why should I care about how you view me? You’re not my God (The One True God, and not your strange Neo-Platonist/Manichaean god); you’re not even my pope. Unless I share and conform to YOUR views, I’ll always be a fascist Nazi dictator evil republican scum to you, and I don’t care.

        God did not cure the afflicted; He healed them, yes, but not cured them completely- there would not be a curing of anything until the universal renewal brought about by Christ’s Second Coming. And for those whose understanding of Christ’s ministry as merely wonder-working, they have missed the point- the point of Christ’s coming was his suffering, death, and resurrection, not the healing nor the laughable “Moral Teacher” characterization- for even Lazarus had to die; and so did everyone who Jesus healed, and subsequently, Christians had to die, even in the most agonizing ways- so spare me your dishonest attempt at false compassion for the disabled- no human hands can truly cure them- for even if they are incomplete on Earth, no appendage, no modification can truly make them whole in the same way they will be made whole in heaven.

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        Perhaps Ioannes my mind doesn’t easily comprehend well your references to others with a disability or plural when all of us age into disabilities. It’s your use of the impersonal 3rd person as if your Comments are cut from any personal sense of connection with others that my sensibilities are reacting to. Remember also I’ve been dealing with ICU end of life decision making matrices and not normally a part of my lifestyle however I do face up to what needs happen.

        Perhaps though, http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/the-divided-brain-26-the-western-world/4392698 is also at work?

      • By logic, and hopefully here with a Biblical theology, I would somewhat agree with Ioannes! Matt. you appear to be thinking and judging by a pure subjective model! And btw, I have had a full-on back surgery myself, some years back (bad parachute landing). But, I still run today, but have good and bad back days!

        Note, I said “somewhat” agree! ;)

      • And make that “okay” days! ;)

      • Ioannes says:

        Dear Fr. Robert.

        Surely, we are near the End of Times when we find some agreement with each other. Some.

        Also didn’t know marines parachuted, thought they were a navy thing

      • Indeed some RMC’s have Para trained people and para regiments. I was one. But I also used to jump after as a civilian. I loved it! I was for a bit, on a jump team, for the visual. And aye I miss it!

        Indeed as conservatives we have much more in common than not! Note the Anglo-Irish Sir Edmund Burke, who is called the Father of Conservatism! And sadly, we can surely see that Matthew is simply NOT a conservative!

        *Just a point, but I consider liberalism, and at least today’s version, to be incompetent and unskillful generally. And often a real bias and mental prejudice. Here of course I am speaking more intellectually. And yes, I know conservatives can fail here also.

      • Ioannes says:

        Fr. Robert:

        I am more of a follower of Continental and Traditional (read: Catholic) Conservatism, such as Joseph de Maistre and more recent movements like Action Française. Both Maistre and Burke seemed reactionary to the events of the French Revolution, but rightly so, considering the upheavals brought about by revolutions, from the French all the way to our “Arab Springs” of latter day. A leading conservative, Peter Hitchens laments how even to this day, young people of my generation call upon the godless forces invoked in France, in Russia, China, and elsewhere, blindly hopeful for some materialistic paradise.

        It is easy to dismiss the bumbling, intellectually dishonest liberal, Fr. Robert, but let us never underestimate the sort of evil that can come from them- In the West, the youth are successfully indoctrinated by their liberal teachers, by their idols in the media, and by their faithless parents and peers… The attitude of ease, comfort, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, and lack of real responsibility takes hold, and when the economy cannot sustain a childless nation of hedonistic parasites, you get riots like the one that happened in Britain earlier this year, I believe. And in Greece. And Spain. And Italy…

        It seems like deja vu, when you superimpose these events and circumstances over to historical economic and social discontent.

        Now, of course, that a person is a liberal or conservative at some point becomes a foregone conclusion- but the question is: “So, what?” which is to say “What is anyone going to do about it?”

      • Matthew Fowler says:

        I simply seek truth Ioannes from which justice naturally flows … irrespective of the over generalised stereotypes your questionable opinions v evidence applies.

      • @Matt: Truth is always first objective, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14: 6, ESV) Christ must always be our centre in the life of God and godliness, for “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.” (Col. 1:15) See too, Matt. 11: 27, such a profound verse itself in Matthews Gospel!

  9. William Tighe says:

    Here is some nice music, entirely appropriate for singing in the West Point chapel:

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 824 other followers