Renunciation Log.

There are organisations I could get involved in, but to be honest, as a lay woman, I feel I will not be listened to or, if I was, I wouldn't be taken seriously. Like your grandmother (maybe), I genuinely do feel I have a vocation to the priesthood, which of course is nonsense, as I can't because of my gender. Talk about disenfranchisement.

In fairness though, the RCC do base their views entirely on the Bible itself, where it states very clearly, many times, why homosexuality is morally wrong and unnatural.

As a side note, here's interesting wiki on 'Ego-dystonic Sexual Orientation':

I just emailed the entire following text to a friend. I find it very informative, and I can definitely see their point. It should have made me angry but oddly I find myself agreeing, and somewhat placated. Are the key points of the document right, or am I in some form of repressed denial (the way some of my friends keep telling me I am! )?

EXTRACTS FROM "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination:
Guidelines for Pastoral Care"


Issued by USCCB, November 14, 2006
Copyright © 2006, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

[Entire Text:
http://www.usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf]


The Bible and All

Jesus taught that “from the
beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his
father and mother [and be joined to his wife], and the two shall become one flesh’” (Mk 10:6-8).
The purpose of sexual desire is to draw man and woman together in the bond of marriage,
a bond that is directed toward two inseparable ends: the expression of marital love and the
procreation and education of children. “The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of
marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life.”
6
This is the order of
nature, an order whose source is ultimately the wisdom of God.

Immorality:

The fact that homosexual acts are
immoral may never be used to justify violence or unjust discrimination. p14

More Immorality:

Because of both Original Sin and personal sin, moral disorder is all too common in our
world. There are a variety of acts, such as adultery, fornication, masturbation, and contraception,
that violate the proper ends of human sexuality. Homosexual acts also violate the true purpose of
sexuality. They are sexual acts that cannot be open to life. Nor do they reflect the
complementarity of man and woman that is an integral part of God’s design for human
sexuality.
8
Consequently, the Catholic Church has consistently taught that homosexual acts “are
contrary to the natural law. . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

***REALLY IMPORTANT***

It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that
is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has
been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented
as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything
about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the
disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural
ends of human sexuality.

We are all damaged by the effects of sin, which causes desires to become disordered.
Simply possessing such inclinations does not constitute a sin, at least to the extent that they are
beyond one’s control. Acting on such inclinations, however, is always wrong.
1

Anti-Gay Violence

In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with a homosexual
inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
2
We recognize that
these persons have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in
some sectors of our society. Sometimes this hatred is manifested clearly; other times, it is
masked and gives rise to more disguised forms of hatred. “It is deplorable that homosexual
persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment
deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”
3

This bit's kind of long, but it's about Western culture and homosexuality:

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality is attentive to the natural law imprinted in
human nature and faithful to the Sacred Scriptures. This teaching offers a beacon of light and
hope in the midst of considerable confusion, intense emotion, and much conflict. Within our
culture, however, there are various obstacles that make it more difficult for some people to
recognize the wisdom contained in this teaching
At the same time, there are features specific to contemporary Western culture that inhibit
the reception of Church teaching on sexual issues in general and on homosexuality in particular.
For example, there is a strong tendency toward moral relativism in our society. Many do not
admit an objective basis for moral judgments. They recognize no acts as intrinsically evil but
maintain that judgments of good and bad are entirely subjective. In this view, matters of sexual
morality should be left for individuals to decide according to their own preferences and values,
with the only restriction that they not cause manifest harm to another individual.
Because Church teaching insists that there are objective moral norms, there are those in
our culture who portray this teaching as unjust, that is, as opposed to basic human rights. Such
claims usually follow from a form of moral relativism that is joined, not without inconsistency,
to a belief in the absolute rights of individuals. In this view, the Church is perceived as
promoting a particular prejudice and as interfering with individual freedom.
In fact, the Church actively asserts and promotes the intrinsic dignity of every person. As
human persons, persons with a homosexual inclination have the same basic rights as all people,
including the right to be treated with dignity. Nevertheless “‘sexual orientation’ does not
constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination.”
33
Therefore, it is not unjust, for example, to limit the bond of marriage to the
union of a woman and a man. It is not unjust to oppose granting to homosexual couples benefits
that in justice should belong to marriage alone. “When marriage is redefined so as to make other
relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened. The
weakening of this basic institution at all levels and by various forces has already exacted too high
a social cost.”

Another common characteristic of Western societies that poses an obstacle to the
reception of Church teaching is the widespread tendency toward hedonism, an obsession with the
pursuit of pleasure. This tendency is closely related to the consumerism of our culture, which
promotes an approach to life that is marked by a concern to maximize pleasure. Viewed from
this perspective, sexual relations are seen as simply another form of pleasure. Promiscuity is
regarded as not only acceptable but normal. The virtue of chastity becomes incomprehensible. It
can even appear to be an unhealthy and unnatural denial of pleasure. Moreover, there are many
in our society, particularly in the advertising and entertainment industries, who make enormous
profits by taking advantage of this tendency and who work to promote it by their actions.
Given such strong influences in our culture, it is not surprising that there are a number of
groups active in our society that not only deny the existence of objective moral norms but also
aggressively seek public approval for homosexual behavior. The message of such groups
misleads many people and causes considerable harm. In the face of this challenge the Church
must continue her efforts to persuade people through rational argument, the witness of her life,
and the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

They've completely suspended all pending submissions for defection and everything's basically on hold.


ARRGHGHHH!!


What's the opposite of baptism? Could one somehow...unbaptise...oneself? :rolleyes:

rainbow kirby wrote: »

There is also the possibility of excommunication latae sententiae.

Hmmm. Which one to choose, there are ever so many ways :rolleyes: I think the difference between walking out with my dignity and being kicked out via excommunication is infinitesimal here. Good idea though.

From wiki:

In religion, the charge of schism is distinguished from that of heresy, since the offence of schism concerns not differences of belief or doctrine but promotion of, or the state of, division,[1] but schisms frequently involve mutual accusations of heresy. In Roman Catholic teaching, every heresy is a schism.[2] However, the Presbyterian scholar James McCord (quoted with approval by the Episcopalian bishop of Virginia Peter Lee) drew a distinction between them, teaching: "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time.""]In religion, the charge of schism is distinguished from that of heresy, since the offence of schism concerns not differences of belief or doctrine but promotion of, or the state of, division,[1] but schisms frequently involve mutual accusations of heresy. In Roman Catholic teaching, every heresy is a schism.[2] However, the Presbyterian scholar James McCord (quoted with approval by the Episcopalian bishop of Virginia Peter Lee) drew a distinction between them, teaching: "If you must make a choice between heresy and schism, always choose heresy. As a schismatic, you have torn and divided the body of Christ. Choose heresy every time."

So that leaves us with Heresy. Again, wiki says:

Some of the doctrines of Protestantism that the Catholic Church considers heretical are the belief that the Bible is the only source and rule of faith ("sola scriptura"), that faith alone can lead to salvation ("sola fide") and that there is no sacramental, ministerial priesthood attained by ordination, but only a universal priesthood of all believers.

I do kind of believe that though. A universal priesthood. The Bible as the source of faith, meaning by extension, an allowance for different interpretations of the text? Or not? And I already don't really believe in transubstantiation. Or consubstantiation for that matter.

Does that mean I'm already a heretic?

reconciliation! That sounds great. Give me a little LGBT Jesus place of my own, and enter into talks with the Vatican to allow me to come back, please.

Sincerely,


Asry