P
pnewton
Guest
You are right. I exaggerated. Substitute “special ire” to use your precise words. Not in Catholic doctrine, still, unless your use of the word special is, well, special.
- Status
C
Catolico65
Guest
Please read my posts in their entirety
:*
"There are some who have been so used to idolatry up until now that, when they eat meat sacrificed to idols,** their conscience, which is weak, is defiled. **
Now food will not bring us closer to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, nor are we better off if we do.
But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.
If someone sees you, with your knowledge, reclining at table in the temple of an idol, may not his conscience too, weak as it is, be “built up” to eat the meat sacrificed to idols?
Thus through your knowledge, the weak person is brought to destruction, the brother for whom Christ died.
When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ." *
Corinthians clearly establishes that person with weak minds can have their consciences defiled easily, such as in this case the temptation to believe that eating meat sacrificed to idols is a good thing.
In the same vein, telling people with weak consciences that they were born homosexual when God and the catechism make it clear this is not what God intended could cause them to have their consciences defiled. That is not good.
C
Catolico65
Guest
Speaking of cherry picking, persons who suffer from deep seated homosexual desires were allowed into the religious orders but that has been changed for reasons that have to do with the potential to sin in this area. On the other hand, the persons you mentions that have mental and physical impediments aren’t entitled to enter not because of the potential for sin. There is a difference.
Here are the revised Vatican guideline that spell out homosexuals with deep seated tendencies restriction that was added to the screening process.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20080628_orientamenti_en.html
C
Catolico65
Guest
I never said Catholic doctrine per se had a special “ire” but that God does. You may say this is a questionable inference but I would a much more questionable inference that you ignore the clear example of Sodom and Gomorrah, where God calls sex between two men an abomination and where adultery between unwed persons was not condemned to death while homosexual sex was, thereby insinuating that homosexuality is no worse than adultery or other serious sins.
Nonetheless, maybe your real question is why is it so important to see the distinction. Given that millions have embraced the devil because they were convinced by others that God has made them innately homosexual and that it is good these person could be doomed because they do not believe they need to repent.
O
oldcatholicguy
Guest
Married men used to be able to become priests. That was changed for the Roman Rite. I guess we are back to my sacramental marriage somehow being wrong since I, a married man, can’t become a priest.
C
Catolico65
Guest
We are supposed to understand the intention and spirit of the Word, not look for loopholes out of convenience. Studying the Bible and doctrine isn’t like the tax law my friend.
R
Rau
Guest
You avoid and obfuscate again. What you are really saying is that all opinions contrary to your own will not be heard. I prefer to be guided by the Church
C
Catolico65
Guest
I have to wonder what is all the big fuss about as far as recognizing that homosexual desires are indeed seriously disordered and defiling thoughts, after all Christ can forgive anything other than blaspheming the Holy Spirit and He certainly isn’t dismayed by our sinful condition as long as we are contrite and wish to become better.You avoid and obfuscate again. What you are really saying is that all opinions contrary to your own will not be heard. I prefer to be guided by the Church
It would follow then that people who minimize homosexuality aren’t willing either to submit to God completely or are not willing to be completely relieved of their homosexual desires.
R
Rau
Guest
Who would oppose the lifting of what is for so many a “trial”?
The Catholic Church would wish every man to live a life through which we approach Christian Perfection, so this applies to you and me too, Catolico. And the formula is the same for all of us:
By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
R
Rau
Guest
Homosexual desires are disordered and on this point all here agree.
Who seek to minimise it? Certainly not the faithful, for they find it a great “trial”.
You are confused. Sin and temptation are different. The Church says so.
P
pnewton
Guest
I ignore nothing. I know what Scripture says, and what we think it says is not always what is said. The connection of homosexuality with Sodom is probable, but tenuous. The only reference is Jude 1, and that is not absolute. Homosexuality is condemned. The connection with Sodom is probable. In any case he did not “call sex between two men and abomination” in the Sodom narrative.
.
I inferred nothing. The statement “Catholic doctrine per se” is meaningless.
D
Deo_Volente
Guest
Grace & Peace!
What is really difficult about Catolico’s argument, though, is that s/he is clearly identifying “Christian perfection” with heterosexuality in some way, either directly, or by suggesting that the latter is the gateway to the former–i.e., you have to be heterosexual before you can begin to think about Christian perfection. The term “heterosexual”, (like the term “homosexual”), describes a movement of desire, but not a call to right relationship–it is, in other words, another form of human concupiscence: not bad in itself, but (given our nature), subject to mis-apprehension and abuse. Given that the catechism describes human sexuality in terms of a call to right relationship (specifically in terms of an orientation to marriage), it’s little wonder that the catechism does not ever use the term “heterosexual.” Along similar lines, it’s also little wonder that the catechism does not recommend the conversion of homosexuals into heterosexuals–why would it recommend merely swapping one form of broken concupiscence for another?
(The counter argument could be made: “well, in order to get married, it helps to be heterosexual.” But while heterosexual concupiscence may give a* practical *advantage here in terms of the ability to sexually desire the opposite sex, it does not give any moral advantage. Moreover, homosexuality has not prevented and need not prevent any given homosexual person from getting married to someone of the opposite sex–history is full of such marriages.)
At any rate it’s clear that the teaching that Christian perfection either requires- or is identical with a heterosexual orientation is grossly (if not dangerously) heterodox: in some, it could very easily lead to despair.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
Indeed, and given Jude’s definite anti-gnosticism, it’s even more likely that the mention of Sodom (and the comment on lusting after “alien flesh”) is a reference to the gnostic notion of an angelic twin or guardian-angel-like figure residing somewhere in the “pleroma” to whom one could or should somehow be sexually joined. Jude also makes a couple references to Enoch (both by name and by referencing the angelic prison that is more completely described in Enoch 1), whose eponymous book deals with the fall of the angelic Watchers through sex with humans. These references all re-enforce a reading of Jude that stresses: you shouldn’t have sex with (or desire to have sex with) angels.
What is really difficult about Catolico’s argument, though, is that s/he is clearly identifying “Christian perfection” with heterosexuality in some way, either directly, or by suggesting that the latter is the gateway to the former–i.e., you have to be heterosexual before you can begin to think about Christian perfection. The term “heterosexual”, (like the term “homosexual”), describes a movement of desire, but not a call to right relationship–it is, in other words, another form of human concupiscence: not bad in itself, but (given our nature), subject to mis-apprehension and abuse. Given that the catechism describes human sexuality in terms of a call to right relationship (specifically in terms of an orientation to marriage), it’s little wonder that the catechism does not ever use the term “heterosexual.” Along similar lines, it’s also little wonder that the catechism does not recommend the conversion of homosexuals into heterosexuals–why would it recommend merely swapping one form of broken concupiscence for another?
(The counter argument could be made: “well, in order to get married, it helps to be heterosexual.” But while heterosexual concupiscence may give a* practical *advantage here in terms of the ability to sexually desire the opposite sex, it does not give any moral advantage. Moreover, homosexuality has not prevented and need not prevent any given homosexual person from getting married to someone of the opposite sex–history is full of such marriages.)
At any rate it’s clear that the teaching that Christian perfection either requires- or is identical with a heterosexual orientation is grossly (if not dangerously) heterodox: in some, it could very easily lead to despair.
Under the Mercy,
Mark
All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
C
Catolico65
Guest
Good grief there is nothing tenuous about Sodom’s message, not to mention that it is the root of the word “sodomy”.
With all due respect that is right out the gay lobby’s handbook. I will pray for you.
R
Rau
Guest
Like the Church, I do not know the cause, so I would oppose teaching that view as fact to anyone (confused or not). Also, like the Church, I would not teach anyone that they chose to be attracted to same sex persons, or that God gave it to them as punishment for something. Can we agree on all these things?
R
Rau
Guest
Why do you condemn those who find SSA a trial yet follow the church, pray and remain chaste, though the temptations remain?
- Status