Bishop Gumbleton says that Church teaching on the subject of homosexuality is “evil”

[Brendan]

Libero:

Love is a human emotion, it comes from humans, we should be able to recognise it ourselves. Do we really need someone else to define it?

No, Love is Divine in origin. It comes from God as it IS God.

Human love is an authentic response to that Divine Love, in that the only authentic love is that which orginates with God and for God’s purposes.

There are many human responses that masquade as love, but are not, and cannot, be actual love.

Have you had a chance to read the new Encyclical ( Deus Caritas Est) yet?

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

Church officials refuse to agree, many doctrines are not a completely true representation of God.

Really, and you determined this how? May I ask how you have a better understanding of God than that which was handed down from Christ to His Apostles?

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

This all depends to me, it may prove hard to word my feelings on this - so bare with.

I would say that in “hating” ones drunkedness, you are hating a part of that person, and that it would be far better shown in love. Attempting to give them all the support they can.

I do not really want to generalise too much, as we are all different, the assitance some need will be different to the style of assistance that others need. Humans are very volatile beings, frequently we do not understand each other, and those who are deemed to need help, may often interpret what one may consider a message of love, to be exactly the opposite.

Thus, I feel it is wise to extend love - unconditionally, first and foremost, and then, upon having established a good enough relationship with a person, provide assitance in other forms, such as education into religious matters.

I would not want statements and use of scripture, to make one feel unloved, and to remove one from God’s love, I would rather prefer delaying the “correction” period, and simply extending love.

Note, if you don’t get my drift on some matters - which is admitedly likely (poor explanations) please ask for me to elaborate, as opposed to jumping to conclusions. - Thanks

OK, does one unconditionally love a person, or a person’s actions?

Are a person’s actions part of that person or something seperate?

For example, is the ‘drunkeness’ a part of that person, or rather is tendency towards excessive alchol consumption a part of the person?

 

[mike182d]

Libero:

Love is a human emotion, it comes from humans, we should be able to recognise it ourselves. Do we really need someone else to define it?

Incorrect. Love is not an emotion, it is a choice. When two people get married, they aren’t marrying a “feeling” or an “emotion,” they are marrying a human being. The fact that people actually believe love is an emotion is the reason why the divorce rate is above 50% in this country (higher among homosexual “marriages.”) The emotive response to the choice to “love” someone is what we commonly misinterpret as being love itself and this emotive feeling of “love” will vary in accord with the decisions and choices being made.

Look at a crucifix. I guarantee Christ wasn’t feeling “love” with his skin torn to shreds, nails though his hands, and a crown of thorns piercing his skull. But I guarantee He was in love.

Your evident misunderstanding of love is the very reason *why *it needs to be defined. You’ve answered your own question with that response.

 

[mike182d]

If my child consistently tries to drink from the bottle of bleach under the bathroom counter despite my warnings, and I punish him or reprimand him, have I ceased to love him? Futhermore, would the true “loving” thing be to merely accept his desire to drink bleach and sit back with open arms waiting for him to repent of his own accord?

 

[mike182d]

Brendan:

Read my post in the link above.

Homosexuality is Objectively Disordered. Homosexual acts are Intrinsically disordered.

The two terms mean different things, and +Gumbleton got that wrong.

But would not the failure to rectify one’s evil tendencies be a sin of omission? That’s the way it is with lust, isn’t it? The desire for a heterosexual man to lust over a woman that is not his wife is not “intrinsically” disordered, but in the spirit of holiness and striving towards sainthood, if I do nothing to remedy my constant desire to lust after women I have committed a sin of omission, have I not?

 

[mike182d]

Liberalsaved:

Interesting. I do beleive that trying to impose your beleifs on others is a reprehensible thing to do.

So, do you disagree with the United States Government taxing us to help the poor and imposing their moral beliefs just as reprehensible? After all, assisting the poor is a moral maxim, not an objective societal norm. It only appears that way to us because of the heavy Chrsitian influence. Roman society functioned quite well by ignoring the plight of the poor and enslaving them.

 

[mike182d]

GloriaPatri4:

Bishop Gumbleton says that Church teaching on the subject of homosexuality is “evil” in this recent homily.

[nationalcatholicreporter.org/peace/gumb021206.htm](The Peace Pulpit February 12, 2006 -- Sixth Sunday in Ordinary Time)

Fascinating that this article came from the National Catholic Reporter; I would expect nothing less of them…

Its funny how whenever I hear the name “National Catholic Reporter” I immediately get an image in my head of Jesus hewing a whip and turning over tables.

 

[mike182d]

Couple questions for the heretical Bishop:

1. What distinctively seperates homosexuality and pedophilia as disorders?
2. Should pedophiles be free to live a lifestyle proper to them because of their innate tendencies?

 

[Brendan]

mike182d:

But would not the failure to rectify one’s evil tendencies be a sin of omission? That’s the way it is with lust, isn’t it? The desire for a heterosexual man to lust over a woman that is not his wife is not “intrinsically” disordered, but in the spirit of holiness and striving towards sainthood, if I do nothing to remedy my constant desire to lust after women I have committed a sin of omission, have I not?

If one sufferes from a disordered nature, and that would mean, oh, ALL of humaninty, one does have an obligation to resist the temptations that result from that disordered nature.

Sucessfully resisting temptation is not sinful, in fact is it something to be lauded, as it means an acceptance of Grace.

Thus being a homosexual is not, by itself a sinful condition. It means that one’s sexual desire are ordered in a false way. It is when someone gives in to that disorder that becomes sinful.

The same is true for the hetrosexual man you mentioned. If he finds himself attracted to someone other than his wife, the temptation must be resisted, in both thought and deed.

Temptations that ‘pop into our heads’ are not sinful, and they do not involve a choice of the Will. But the Will must be conformed to God, and so would resist and reject all such thoughts and certainly could never licitly choose to engage in adultery or in homosexual acts.

 

[fix]

Brendan:

The same is true for the hetrosexual man you mentioned. If he finds himself attracted to someone other than his wife, the temptation must be resisted, in both thought and deed.

Of course, but the attraction to the other woman is not objectively disordered as same sex attraction is. If one “misuses” that attraction then it would be a sin, but the attraction in and of itself is not objectively disordered. Is that not a significant difference?

 

[Brendan]

fix:

Of course, but the attraction to the other woman is not objectively disordered as same sex attraction is. If one “misuses” that attraction then it would be a sin, but the attraction in and of itself is not objectively disordered. Is that not a significant difference?

If you are talking about a specific instance of attaction, yes it would be objectively disorderer.

To be ‘objectively disorder’, in Moral Theology terms, means to have a false (dis) inclination towards (ordered) object (the particular woman)

Since the object of that particular attraction is a woman to whom one is not married, that particular instance of attraction is disordered in it’s object, or objectively disordered.

Now, the NATURE of the attraction, that of a male being attracticed to the female sex, is not disordered, and thus the NATURE of the attraction in not disordered.

The Nature of homosexuality, however, it essence, what is it at it’s core, is disordered. It is disordered in the object of it’s attraction, that of one’s own sex.

Does that help?

 

[fix]

Brendan:

If you are talking about a specific instance of attaction, yes it would be objectively disorderer.

To be ‘objectively disorder’, in Moral Theology terms, means to have a false (dis) inclination towards (ordered) object (the particular woman)

Since the object of that particular attraction is a woman to whom one is not married, that particular instance of attraction is disordered in it’s object, or objectively disordered.

Now, the NATURE of the attraction, that of a male being attracticed to the female sex, is not disordered, and thus the NATURE of the attraction in not disordered.

The Nature of homosexuality, however, it essence, what is it at it’s core, is disordered. It is disordered in the object of it’s attraction, that of one’s own sex.

Does that help?

Not really. It seems you are saying the opposite sex attraction in general is ordered toward the good, but in a particular case it could be disordered? Correct? I am missing how the attraction is disordered in such a case when it seems the attraction was put there by God.

Does every non married heterosexual man have a disordered attraction to women as he is not married to any of them?

I guess I am not understanding? How is the nature of the attraction different from the attraction itself?

 

[Libero]

Incorrect. Love is not an emotion, it is a choice. When two people get married, they aren’t marrying a “feeling” or an “emotion,” they are marrying a human being. The fact that people actually believe love is an emotion is the reason why the divorce rate is above 50% in this country (higher among homosexual “marriages.”) The emotive response to the choice to “love” someone is what we commonly misinterpret as being love itself and this emotive feeling of “love” will vary in accord with the decisions and choices being made.

I honestly do not know what to make of this. People marry because of their emotions, their feelings for one another. What would you have me believe love is?

 

[fix]

Brendan:

If you are talking about a specific instance of attaction, yes it would be objectively disorderer.

To be ‘objectively disorder’, in Moral Theology terms, means to have a false (dis) inclination towards (ordered) object (the particular woman)

In reading about this topic I came upon this from the courage website:

The term “objective disorder” is a philosophical term. It is used to describe homosexual attractions because such attractions can never lead to a morally good sexual act. It is objected that if a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder. This latter example is not an objective disorder, because, if the man or woman learns to control their heterosexual attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing. couragerc.net/FAQs.html

So in a particular case it would not be objectively disordered?

 

[Libero]

OK, does one unconditionally love a person, or a person’s actions?

Are a person’s actions part of that person or something seperate?

For example, is the ‘drunkeness’ a part of that person, or rather is tendency towards excessive alchol consumption a part of the person?

I do not understand why people have to make the distinction.

To me, in saying that you love someone, but then adding that you “hate” their actions, you are actually sending in the image that you love them less. Why point it out?

“I love you, but not what you are - I hate that”

 

[fix]

Libero:

I honestly do not know what to make of this. People marry because of their emotions, their feelings for one another. What would you have me believe love is?

There is an emotional component, but love is much more than a feeling. When my infant cries at 2:00am and one must get out of bed one may not “feel” love, but one loves the baby.

The measure of love is sacrifice, not an emotional feeling.

 

[Brendan]

fix:

So in a particular case it would not be objectively disordered?

A particular case might be disordered in object.

The nature (which was described above) is not. The attraction of man for woman has marriage as it’s natural (God designed) conculsion, a moral good.

A particular case, such as a married man lusting after a woman who is not his wife, would be objectively disordered, as moral good could not be the direct outcome of the enactment of that desire.

 

[Libero]

Really, and you determined this how? May I ask how you have a better understanding of God than that which was handed down from Christ to His Apostles?

I stated that church officials cannot agree - that is true, we have so many different denominations, and then there is simply our church, and their are vastly different understandings in that. For example, look at the recent instruction regarding homosexual seminarians, as soon as it was released, there were bishops all over the world trying to reassure people it did not ban homosexuals, and then there were other bishops claiming it did. - Huge confusion, not exactly agreeing is it?

 

[setter]

fix:

In reading about this topic I came upon this from the courage website:

So in a particular case it would not be objectively disordered?

Try this:

heterosexual desire = ordered sexual desire

homosexual desire = disordered sexual desire

Lust, whether of a disordered or ordered sexual desire in nature, is:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.