From: bdboyle@erenj.com (Bryan D. Boyle)
Subject: Re: condemnation of homosexual acts is (un)necessary...
Organization: Exxon Research and Engineering Co., NJ
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:16:13 GMT

In article <C1JwBu.9HH@NCoast.ORG> aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski) writes:
>In article <C1Iz07.A9t@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> creps@nickel.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>>In article <C1I2BF.FyC@NCoast.ORG> aiden@NCoast.ORG (Steven Otlowski) writes:
>>>In article <9301261417.AA132672@oldgwenbnc> mlj@EVOLVING.COM writes:
>>>>
>>>>         Let's assume, for a moment ( and a moment only :-) ), that the "Spirit"
>>>> > is calling on us to set aside yet another of our prejudices
>>>>
>>>>How would you explain the Burst of insanity that the "Spirit" would move/stir
>>>>the hearts of men to engage in an act that is detrimental and non-productive
>>>>to the human race?
>>>
>>>I know a number of homosexual couples who are involved in monagomous
>>>loving relationships.  They are church goers and are active on a civic
>>>level.  
>>>
>>>I find it hard to describe them as "detrimental" or "non-productive"
>>>to the human race.
>>>
>>>I fail to see the damage done by any relationship founded in love
>>>and mutual respect.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should invest more than (a moment only :-) )  and search 
>>>that inner part of yourself where the Spirit speaks to the hearts of
>>>mankind.  
>>
>>   This poster seems to be saying that homosexual acts are not sinful,
>>and that the Holy Spirit leads him and others to this belief.
>>
>>   It's dangerous to attribute to the Holy Spirit that sinful acts are
>>in fact not sinful.  Especially when one is claiming that one knows
>>better than the Church which Jesus promised would have the Holy Spirit
>>to protect her from error.  If you are wrong it could very well be
>>blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
>>
>>Steve Creps, Indiana University
>>creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
>
>Once more... the nature of what is perceived as sin changes over time.

Really?  The nature of murder makes it a sin, no matter what age you
are talking about.  Adulterous relationships are sinful in and of
themselves, and, whether society believes it or not, are still sinful.
Sin is sin, and the nature of sin does not change, nor does the author.
(moral relativism notwithstanding.)


>This is an established fact.

By whom?  Carl Jung?  Matthew Fox?  Dan Rather?  Bob Guccione?  Where and
how has this become established?  And is it a fact, or an opinion widely
trying to become a fact through forced 'ex post facto' reasoning?

>Awareness of the fact that a given act may or may not be in keeping
>with the spirit of the Gospel seldom comes from the "Church".

Is this opinion?  If not, please provide the citation(s) that cause you
to come to this conclusion.
>
>Revolutionary ideas are usually the result of the gifted insight of
>a few individuals.

Such as whom?
>                     This insight may stem from reason or from the 
>gift of the Spirit.  The end result is that these individuals make 
>others avare of a need to re-examine what they hold to be true.
>This can only be done in contemplation of the Spirit within.
>We were promised that the Spirit would lead us.  The Spirit speaks to 
>who he will.  We were promised that the Spirit would guide the Church, 
>not that the Spirit would lead the hierarchy of the Church.  
>We are ALL part of the Church.  Thoughout history are examples
>of lowly Christians and hermits chastizing the heirarchy for their errors.
>Often these people cause the hierarchy to see the light.
>Ladership often (usually?) comes from below and not from above.

Like Luther, Henry VIII, Fox, DeChardin, etc?  no, I dont' see any
majority groundswell in the Church for acceptance of Homosexual "union",
just a small, verbally abusive minority spouting politically correct 
jargon and preaching in an intollerant manner against all those who would
dare to question their obvious "right" to challenge any belief that was
uncomfortable to their own agenda.  You also call upon the Spirit that 
guides us, but that same Spirit also protects us from the Gates of Hell
prevailing against the Church.  And that same Spirit was sent to the
apostles to give them the power to bind or loose anything.

I don't think it is so much homosexual activity the activists are pressing
here as much as it is a direct attack on the God-given mandate to provide
a level of discipline and insurance to the belief structure.  

>The structure of the Church changes to reflect the insight and needs
>of those who make it up.
>
>What is sin?  Is it a list of things that we shouldn't do?
>Is that in the spirit of the New Testement?  
>
>The important thing is WHY we do something.  If we make a rule more
>important than what it is supposed to stand for we are guilty of
>Idolatry.  
>
>Sexual regulations were designed to uphold the Sanctity and Human Dignity
>of the Individual.. to help make sure that peole were not USING
>each other as things, contrary to their human dignity.
>
>The time has come for another change.

In your opinion.  Please provide authoritative sources to back up this
assertion.

  As previously posted by another
>person (sorry I don't recall who), it is time to grant homosexual couples
>the human dignity that current regulations deny them.  A chance to 
>find themselves, and not hide in shame what they can not help.
>The Church admits that it is not wrong to be Homosexual.  This
>is how they have been created... and thus it is right for them to have
>been created that way.   

The creation of something does not imply that it is rightly created, only
that it exists.  Disease is a creation, but is it right that we accept
disease?  Not everything that exists or is created is good.

>The inconsistancy in Church teaching lies in (supposedly) recognizing
>them for what they are, and forcing them to lie about themselves
>to the both themselves and the world.  This is to deny them the basic
>human dignity to accept who they have been made.
>
>Perhaps the time has come to grant them the dignity of marriage
>or "union" if you prefer...     
>
>The opportunity to live out a loving relationship.
>n
>Don't quote me rules... don't think about accepted norms...
>instead contemplate the message (not the words) of the Gospel.

We have, and not cafeteria-style.  Not quoting rules, living by example.

>
>Would it be right of you to deny them the dignity you hold for 
>yourself?
>

I don't deny anyone dignity, but I don't condone acts that are outside the
logical construct or derivable strucuture of the Church as given to us
by Christ.
>
>Think about it.
>
>Think!
>
i have, and i object to your assumption that those that do not agree with
you haven't thought about it.  As I have said before, at some point, if
you don't like it, then why do you hang around?  If you don't agree with
the Catholic Church's position or belief structure, then why continue to
"be untrue" to yourself and hang around?  

-- 
\   Bryan D. Boyle            \           _         ______ |
 \  Senior Engineer            \        /   \___-=0`/|0`/__|
  \ Exxon Research & Engineering\_______   N7068W  / | /    )
  / 908 730-3338                /        `/-==__ _/__|/__=-|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic