Patrick Coffin and some of his regular guests who are wonderful apolgists, but act as if they don’t use the word gay, it will disappear and so will those who are gay.
This is done by pointing to the good. Pointing out how bad sin is to a person who does not see the sin doesn’t work.
Everything, (literally everything) the Church teaches points humanity to it’s best self, which is life in Christ. Pope Francis does a wonderful job engaging people to promote and do “the good”, irregardless of their political persuasion.
The devil does his best work when he convinces people that evil is good. In fact a good many don’t believe there is a devil. That doesn’t mean the Church stop warning about him. A key mission given to the Catholic Church by Christ is the salvation of souls. The identification and condemnation of sin is necessary for that mission. It’s interesting that when Pope Francis gave all priests the authority to absolve the sin of abortion many took his words to say that the Catholic Church was relaxing it’s stance on abortion ignoring that the Holy Father called abortion a sin and that forgiveness can only be had if one is sincerely repentant.
People can and do misinterpret his words to their hearts content. Christ is misunderstood, the Pope will also be misunderstood.
It seems to me that the key question is whether the person is / could be a cause of scandal - that is, lead others to think that their behaviour is acceptable. This applies not just to homosexuality but also to others issues such as divorced and remarried or cohabitating. Just because a person is gay or living with a partner or remarried, this does not necessarily mean that they or their behaviour will be a cause of scandal. It is when there is sinful behaviour that is well known that scandal will likely result. even when a person has done or said something in the past, we do not know if they have received the sacrament of reconciliation.
The reality is of course that people gossip but that it arguably worse and so should not be confused with scandal. So a person may be gay and chaste, or two people may be living together but not in a sexual relationship. Granted many people will these days assume otherwise, but Catholics are called to be counter cultural in this regard, showing the world that there is a better way and that assumptions can often be misplaced. We can also be counter cultural by not succumbing to the temptation to engage in gossip but instead respecting people by treating them as children of God.
It seems to be getting increasingly difficult to use language with any clarity.
“Gay” might not mean “having gay sex.” “Straight” might not mean “having straight sex.”
I guess we’ll have to use qualifiers, such as “gay and chaste,” “straight and chaste,” cohabiting and chaste." When sexual preferences become so important, it gets complicated. When someone just uses the term “gay” any more I have no idea what they mean.
It’s almost to the point in secular society that we can safely assume that unmarried people we converse with, whether straight or gay, aren’t chaste, or if they are it’s by circumstance not by choice. Even married people in majority probably aren’t chaste (ABC, illicit sexual practices, etc.)
In polite conversation with Catholics we can charitably assume chastity or at least striving for it, but that is by no means always the reality.
Either way I don’t lose too much sleep over it. I certainly never pry about one’s sexual status or practices other than assuming married couples are sexually active.
So you claim that Patrick Coffin and his guests wish gay people would disappear. :hmmm:
A person’s use of the language doesn’t really irritate me unless they are dishonest with the language or imprecise.
If these radio hosts use “SSA” I know exactly what they are talking about.
“Homosexual” is quite clear, I know exactly what they are talking about.
“temptation” vs “acts”…clear
I think good Catholic apologists are trained to be as precise as possible, because honest communication is important in spreading the gospel. Communion, community, communicate, unity. The words are all related and good communication is key to respecting your audience and promoting unity. How can you even know you agree/disagree with someone if you don’t know what they intend by their words?
When the radio hosts you are referencing use these terms, you may not agree with their point of view, but isn’t it at least true that they are employing the language in an honest attempt to communicate, and not in an attempt to deceive and muddle, conflate and obscure?
Why would we want a world full of obfuscation, where words are vague and used arbitrarily by different people? Sounds like the devil’s playground to me.
I have no problem with the word gay.
Same sex attraction is a term defining a condition.
Gay is a label given to an individual who deals with same sex attraction.
It seems to me that the word “gay” or similar can’t be read to include an embracing of homosexual acts unless the context requires it. Certainly there are many who take the view that sex is a right for any pair of consulting adults, and thus these people have no need or desire to distinguish the inclination from the willingness to embrace it.
It seems as if we are getting to a point that before we can carry any kind of conversation with any one we need to sit down and agree on the meaning of words.
Instead of being able to come to any understanding with each other we spend our time arguing over words.
I did not know that there were so many connotations with such a simple word “gay”.
I used to think it simply meant happy and carefree.
I suppose the parish could post guidelines that bar those who are living lives in public contradiction to Church teaching from having active roles. The guideline could be “those who are living in public contradiction to Church teaching and thereby pose risk of causing scandal are not allowed into this position.” If someone is already in a position, then a private meeting with them could be held in which they are told that they cannot continue due to danger of scandal or an applicant can be denied through a letter or something. No matter how polite we are, though, some are bound to get mad anyway.
At home, shows or print that have considerable homosexual behavior (or any immoral behavior) should be avoided. If it ever comes up, the wickedness of homosexual actions can be discussed to keep the fact that it is a mortal sin in your mind and that it is intrinsically disordered.
It did mean only that, once upon a time…
If you want another example of the abuse of language, consider the term “women’s health”. It used to mean what the words say. It is now commonly used to describe a narrow subset of medical services connected with contraception and abortion.
So yes - words are often used in self-serving ways.
You don’t let your kids watch cooking shows because you think the host may be gay? What are they doing on the show that is ‘perverse’?
Do you have a list of people in TV or the cinema or in public life that are gay from whom your children should be protected? Do you have a list of people who have used drugs or have had sex outside of marriage or who have had an abortion or have used contraception? I guess that list must include people you know, who you work with and to whom you are related. Do you keep your kids away from all these as well, or is it just the ones you know are gay?
Maybe you should take to heart the thoughts coming from the current Vatican Synod, specifically Father Tom Rosica:
'He said the bishops had called for “a new form of language, in particular in speaking of homosexuals … we do not pity gay persons but we recognise them for who they are. They are our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our neighbours and our colleagues.” abc.net.au/news/2015-10-07/church-should-shun-derogatory-words-on-gays/6832498
Telling children that they can’t watch something because ‘there’s a gay person in it’, doesn’t seem to align with Rosica’s words. Not very inclusive.
I think using the term gay in 2015 USA absolutely means embracing a homosexual life style.
Gay and chaste is an oxymoron. The person in question is simply chaste but not gay.
Straight and Chaste
Single and Chaste
Married and Chaste
are all examples of Chaste persons.
SSA does not equal gay. It is an internal emotional/mental inclination, but not something that needs to be “celebrated.” It needs to be dealt with, like anyone that has an abnormal propensity for something -which just about everyone has in some direction or other, unless dealt with.
Our Western culture has been dismantling standard human morality with ever increasing effectiveness in these days of media saturation and consumerism. But the old laws that governed morality since the beginning of the human race have not been abridged or abrogated due to “modern life.”
As a woman when I see “women’s health” I think obstetrics and gynecology not abortions and I think that is true of other women.
I’m sure my wife thinks that way too.
But in the context of those who are advocating for “women’s rights” over their body (the right to contracepted sex at will, and the right to abortion) the term has been co-opted as a euphemism. “Marriage equality” is somewhat similar, though prior to the current popular usage, that innocuous (and arguably meaningless) term would merely have produced puzzled looks!
On reflection, I do agree BTW that “gay” is *most likely * used as a reference to one who is prepared to embrace a same sex sexual relationship.
The whole point of recognizing who we are is so we might know who we can be. If we do not know who we are, we do not know where the journey begins. A person who denies they are in a swimming pool does not know they need to swim. And so we tread the water.
Recognizing and accepting who we are is also known as “dealing with reality in an honest way”. Acceptance provides us an honest look at our selves in our whole, warts and all. The whole point of acceptance is not to validate our selves with all our warts as a finished product but to provide a starting point for conversion. Once I accept I am in the water I can begin to swim.
My acceptance of my own sin is not static. It is not validation and acceptance for it’s own sake, it is seeing and accepting my whole being, so that I can know how to change, and where to begin. It is not ok to tell a person they are not in water over their heads, cause you contribute to their drowning. Treading water is very tiring.
I’m not sure that the rather tortured analogy about swimming bears any relationship to my post whatsoever.