Monarchy Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 10     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next   »
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,479
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivatReginaScottorum
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello
I must say that I have to value the the friendship of anyone who could describe me as "tolerant and accepting" after reading my above post. [smile]

It depends on what is being discussed, I suppose...

I would love to be Pope. I already have my name picked out: Adrian VII, in honour of Adrian IV, the only English pope. People who thought Benedict XVI was too ostentatious or too traditional would be in for a rude awakening. Bye bye guitars, hello triple tiara...

I know that this comment is a few days old now, but...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian_the_Seventh 

Your comment immediately made me think of the above short story by Baron Corvo, AKA Frederick Rolfe. 


Wow, someone else who knows Frederick Rolfe!

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
If you actually read all of the Romans passage, it specifically condemns people turned homosexual by God as punishment for pagan religious practices. I assure you that I have never engaged in such, so the passage does not apply to me. Or to any gay people today, I would imagine. In the other two passages you cite (one of which is most unlikely to have been authored by Paul, but that is another matter) the word translated as the equivalent of 'homosexual men' is, in transliteration, arsenokoites. It is in fact untranslatable; its literal meaning is 'manbeds', but what its actual meaning was we do not know, as it is never encountered outside of Paul (and forgers using his name in the next century) and he gives no explanation. You can certainly assume from the context that it means something bad, as it occurs in a list of different kinds of grievous sinners, but there is no clue to the meaning other than that. Perhaps Paul did indeed mean homosexual men by it, though it could just as easily be homosexual prostitutes. Or something else not so obvious. There are other problems with these two passages in particular, but I think I have said enough to show that they do not amount to clear condemnation.
.


I'm sorry, but this is simply one of those extremely tendentious revisionist readings of such passages or events, similar to those who claim some monks had gay marriage ceremonies or the Second Philippic is evidence that the Romans accepted homosexual marriage. Firstly, Romans in context is clear. Paul is clearly referring to homosexual acts. Homosexual history is full of this huge revisionism today. There is no other way to sensibly read the passage. He isn't talking about people made homosexual by God in the sense you mean, he is simply saying God gave them up to their unnatural lusts because they turned from him. It is just a manner of speaking, like when God is said to have hardened Pharaoh's heart. Secondly, almost all the works on Biblical Greek, like Strong's Concordance, take arsenokoites  to refer to male homosexual acts. There is next to disagreement except from rather extreme revisionists. The context of its use makes this obvious. And Paul is clearly not talking about temple prostitutes, firstly, because he wouldn't single out homosexual ones if he really thought homosexual acts acceptable, and, two, he makes no mention of them.

Simply look at the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testament#Arguments_for_a_reference_to_homosexual_behaviour

The only scholar they use to properly support (they mention Eliot too, but only to suggest the term refers to all sodomy, which is hardly much better for homosexuals) the alternative explanations is Boswell, a notorious revisionist famous for speculating on medieval monks having marriage ceremonies. They support the traditional interpretation with many good sources.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

I'm not sure that's quite as true as social conservatives would like it to be. I know young people who are generally quite right-wing, and don't necessarily buy into the whole "LGBT" ideology, but whose attitudes regarding homosexuality itself are definitely more liberal than would have been normal in previous eras, even compared to the 1990s when I was a teenager. This is probably even more true in Western Europe, where the interests of gay Europeans are becoming a rallying point for the so-called "far right" (e.g. Marine Le Pen) against Islamization, than in the United States.

 

Straight white liberals may not be having 4+ children, but they're still having one or two or even three and will continue to do so. And many people no longer see acceptance of homosexuality as particularly left-wing.



On the other hand, though, I would argue homosexual acts are still viewed with unease by a good proportion of the populace. They simply suppress this and have no one to articulate it for them. I know many people in their twenties who express non-PC views on homosexuality, at least from time to time.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #64 
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. For Romans, to take the simple words is revisionist, and to put a spin on them to get the meaning you want is not? And for the other two passages (which are near-identical), the context makes it obvious how? They are a list of kinds of sinners, the vast majority of them not sexual sinners. While the koites part is suggestive, how do you know Paul was even referring to anything sexual? And anyway, if Paul had wanted to say 'male homosexuals', why didn't he use the normal Greek word for these, which transliterated is pederastes (which did not have the sinister connotation its cognate has today), instead of some word encountered nowhere else? This was a point I had forgotten when I posted before. The tendentiousness is yours, and the extreme examples about monks marrying and so forth you give (which I don't subscribe to, and have never given any indication I might do) are just more of your extremely poor style of argument on this issue.

I think it is an issue which bothers you more than you like to admit, and while your more emollient original reply made me inclined to one more try, I am now convinced that you are simply a bigot and not worth the bother. This argument is over so far as I am concerned. I will reply to you on other issues and not let hateful remarks you make stand, but will go no further with this.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #65 
This is why I once banned this topic for a time. Let's not descend to calling people names like "bigot." Once again, both gay monarchists and monarchists who adhere to traditional views on sexuality are welcome here.

As a side note, Wessexman indicated he was also opposed to fornication, contraception, and no-fault divorce. It seems to me that it would only be fair to call someone a "bigot" if he objected to homosexuality but gave heterosexual behaviour traditionally regarded as sinful a free pass.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,567
Reply with quote  #66 
He objects to homosexuals in committed and monogamous relationships, and objects to those relationships being given the sanction of law. He has no such objection to analogous heterosexual relationships, so your analogy fails. I call him a bigot not because of that, but because his replies show that he is impervious to reason on the question, therefore not worth arguing with. I know the species by now.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #67 

It seems to me that arguments focused on Scripture only make sense when dealing with sola scriptura Protestants. For Catholics and Orthodox, and whatever Wessexman is, ultimately the Church has the authority to decide how to interpret Scripture (which doesn't mean it can suddenly reverse itself to suit modern trends or for any other reason), and Tradition carries its own weight, more than any individual's reason or arguments no matter how learned they seem. It is quite clear from history what the traditional position on sexuality (it's procreative) is. If one doesn't like it, one is free to be a liberal Protestant, Anglican, or atheist, or to simply disregard the teaching without demanding that it be changed, as I'm pretty sure many gay Catholics & Orthodox over the centuries have done. Even Pope Francis and his liberal allies at the Synod cannot change Catholic morality, though I don't particularly mind the change in tone that some conservatives are so upset about currently. As is well known here I have other issues with Pope Francis.

In the Anglican Communion these days, some of us are sort of OK with ambiguities, though there is no ambiguity at all in my bitter opposition to female "clergy" which I fully realize is a lost cause.

 

 

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #68 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. For Romans, to take the simple words is revisionist, and to put a spin on them to get the meaning you want is not? And for the other two passages (which are near-identical), the context makes it obvious how? They are a list of kinds of sinners, the vast majority of them not sexual sinners. While the koites part is suggestive, how do you know Paul was even referring to anything sexual? And anyway, if Paul had wanted to say 'male homosexuals', why didn't he use the normal Greek word for these, which transliterated is pederastes (which did not have the sinister connotation its cognate has today), instead of some word encountered nowhere else? This was a point I had forgotten when I posted before. The tendentiousness is yours, and the extreme examples about monks marrying and so forth you give (which I don't subscribe to, and have never given any indication I might do) are just more of your extremely poor style of argument on this issue.

I think it is an issue which bothers you more than you like to admit, and while your more emollient original reply made me inclined to one more try, I am now convinced that you are simply a bigot and not worth the bother. This argument is over so far as I am concerned. I will reply to you on other issues and not let hateful remarks you make stand, but will go no further with this.
This simply ignores the two main points. One, the context is obviously sexual. I mean by this the verses this words appear in. Paul talks of lust, indeed unnatural lust between those of the same sex. There is really only one common sense interpretation of the word in context. Two, almost all scholars conclude its meaning is male homosexual acts. One could basically just appeal to authority in this instance be fairly content. The only significant break with the consensus position is Boswell, who is known for extravagant revisionism (which is why I mentioned the marriages of monks).All you have is the authority of a notorious revisionist and the fact Paul used an unusual word. All I will say is those making accusations of bigotry should offer more than highly dubious revisionism. In your circumstances I don't blame you for being defensive, but I would suggest it is not I who is being more bigoted (in the sense of being unwilling to properly examine one's viewpoints).

And, of course, it is not the Scriptures alone from which I take my views. It is the universal authority of nearly all traditional societies and religious traditions and Platonic-Aristotelian natural law which are even more important to me.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #69 

For traditionalists and reactionaries, Christian or not, the primary purpose of Marriage is the procreation of children in a stable environment, and the orderly transmission of property. Romantic love is secondary. (The countless arranged marriages in European royal and aristocratic history in which romantic love was minimal or nonexistent were nevertheless real marriages.) So it is not reasonable to expect anyone coming from a consistently traditionalist/reactionary perspective to agree that same-sex unions should be "given the sanction of law," which would never have occurred to anybody, including homosexuals, prior to the late 20th century, not an epoch which monarchists can be expected to regard with affection in general.

I'm not as firmly opposed to contemporary permissivism as Wessexman is, but I would give up modern "freedom" in a heartbeat if we could have the pre-1914 monarchies and culture back.

 

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 890
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by royalcello

For traditionalists and reactionaries, Christian or not, the primary purpose of Marriage is the procreation of children in a stable environment, and the orderly transmission of property. Romantic love is secondary. (The countless arranged marriages in European royal and aristocratic history in which romantic love was minimal or nonexistent were nevertheless real marriages.) So it is not reasonable to expect anyone coming from a consistently traditionalist/reactionary perspective to agree that same-sex unions should be "given the sanction of law," which would never have occurred to anybody, including homosexuals, prior to the late 20th century, not an epoch which monarchists can be expected to regard with affection in general.

 



Yes, this is the essence of it, although perhaps the best way of putting it would be to say the biological and procreational aspects of man are a reflection of and substrate to his higher, romantic ones. In the traditional understanding, man is one. He cannot subvert his biological nature and have orderly and worthwhile development of his higher nature; he cannot have an orderly and proper romantic or even sexual relationship whilst subverting his biological functions.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 4,147
Reply with quote  #71 
With regards to sexuality in general, I think it's important to remember is that for all the talk about permissiveness, Western society is actually rather less permissive on many aspects of these things than it was in the 70s when permissiveness became wildly overdone. This may have actually been mentioned here before. It is also true that ironically out of the same liberal phenomenon, there is also an appalling tendency for people become paranoid and overreact to certain things.
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #72 
Like the absurd hysteria that surrounds anything involving adults and minors (even late teenagers).
Windemere

Registered:
Posts: 331
Reply with quote  #73 
I personally didn't care for the Misa de Ninos, and I much preferred the Westminster Mass. But judging from the enthusiasm displayed by the Misa de Ninos spectators, they must have derived some sort of spiritual benefit from it. To each his own.

The last Pope to wear the conical papal triregnum tiara was Paul VI. (Although there do appear to be internet pictures of Benedict XVI wearing one).  It  dates back to ancient times, and is a distinctive traditional papal symbol. I'd like to see its use revived for important public ceremonies, perhaps in a plainer form, and decorated with religious symbols rather than jewels.

__________________
Dis Aliter Visum "Beware of martyrs and those who would die for their beliefs; for they frequently make many others die with them, often before them, sometimes instead of them."
royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #74 

"To each his own."

No, no, no, a thousand times no! Garbage like the "Misa de Niños" is an abomination. I don't care if some idiots with no taste or kids who don't know any better enjoy that filth. It should be eliminated. Attractive young women or young men taking their clothes off could also generate enthusiastic crowds. That doesn't mean the Church should sponsor that. (Actually from what I've read it practically does at World Youth Day and some similar events.) A lot of people like a lot of things--like being able to vote in presidential elections--that I would eradicate if I could.


Stripping the papal tiara of jewels would defeat its purpose, which is to demonstrate the royal sovereignty of the King of Kings. The Church needs unlimited grandeur and splendour, not parsimonious puritanism. Catholics should embrace the spirit of the glorious Renaissance and Baroque eras, not this "humble" nonsense.

 

I would rather the Church become numerically smaller, but zealously cling to its traditions and patrimony, than have the artificially large numbers it currently enjoys and tolerate modernist junk in its liturgies.

royalcello

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 6,768
Reply with quote  #75 

More examples of modernist abominations that ought to be brutally suppressed, and in Austria, of all places, the land of Haydn, Mozart, and Schubert. The execrable Cardinal Schönborn, a total disgrace to his aristocratic ancestors, who insisted on a republican disclaimer before the Kaiserhymne at Archduke Otto's funeral, is responsible. I had the misfortune of wandering into a Saturday evening "mass" at Vienna's St Stephen's Cathedral in March 2013. The "music" polluting that glorious Gothic building was as wretched as anything one might hear in an ugly American suburban parish.

There is no limit to my fanatical hatred for this sort of thing.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation: