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

[fix]

Brendan:

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.

The lust is disordered, but the “natural” attraction is not disordered?

 

[Libero]

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.

I agree that love is not simply a feeling. But what is it?

It is not merely an emotion or a sacrifice, I love my family, but I do not make what could be considered that great a sacrifice for them.

 

[fix]

setter:

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.

I agree. Is that what Brendan is saying though? I was saying the natural opposite sex attraction is never objectively disordered.

Let us use an example. A married man sees another woman and instantly finds her attractive, no desire to do impure acts. That would be an attraction, no? Disordered?

A man with SSA sees another man and finds him attractive, no desire to act on it, disordered?

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

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

Well, as a Christian, I love Adolf Hitler. As a Christian, I do not love his murderous actions.

Does the Christian love of a person who is a murderous fanatic also extent to his actions.

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"

You are confusing two aspects of a person, the person they are and the moral decisions they make.

Does one love an alcholic because of their additiction to alchol or *in spite * of it.

It is not a greater sign of love to love a person through their faults, not BECAUSE of their faults.

And is it not a superior sign of love to help them overcome their faults?

This is what God Himself does. He loves me despite me being a sinner, not because I am a sinner.

Does God love me less when He makes know my sin to me?? Is God, as you say, a" sending in the image that (He) love (me) less"

God, however is not content to let me remain a sinner, but rather give me Grace to overcome Sin.

Are we not called to do the same, to become images of God to others? To assist them in overcoming their sin, as God assists us in overcoming our own?

 

[Brendan]

fix:

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.

:clapping:

The ‘emotion’ of Love is a response to our decision to Love.

 

[Riley259]

cathgal:

What a sad state he’s in. He needs to read his Catechism again…

Yes it is a sad state that Bishops are now openly dissenting with the Magisterium which has taught clearly on this subject. On a related note, I just read that 19 priests from Canada are openly and loudly protesting the Church’s stand on gay marriage - very sad indeed.

 

[Libero]

Well, as a Christian, I love Adolf Hitler. As a Christian, I do not love his murderous actions.

Does the Christian love of a person who is a murderous fanatic also extent to his actions.

Adolf Hitler is an extreme case, how many regular sinners are responsible for the deaths of 10million people?

Does one love an alcholic because of their additiction to alchol or in spite of it.

It is not a greater sign of love to love a person through their faults, not BECAUSE of their faults.

And is it not a superior sign of love to help them overcome their faults?

This is what God Himself does. He loves me despite me being a sinner, not because I am a sinner.

Does God love me less when He makes know my sin to me?? Is God, as you say, a" sending in the image that (He) love (me) less"

God, however is not content to let me remain a sinner, but rather give me Grace to overcome Sin.

Are we not called to do the same, to become images of God to others?

One loves the person, I did not mean to imply that one loves the person because of their sinning.

One loves the person without having knowledge of their sinner “status” - this has absolutely no effect.

One does not love in “spite” they simply love, their should be no question about whether it is right, this is what I mean by unconditional love, one loves without wanting someone to change or stay the same, as they shall always love.

 

[setter]

I agree. Is that what Brendan is saying though? I was saying the natural opposite sex attraction is never objectively disordered.

Correct.

Let us use an example. A married man sees another woman and instantly finds her attractive, no desire to do impure acts. That would be an attraction, no? Disordered?

A natural and well ordered attraction – Yes. A disorder? – Yes, a moral disorder if the spontaneous heterosexual ordered thoughts become lustful – i.e., this results in a disordered desire of an objectively ordered sexual attraction.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

Adolf Hitler is an extreme case, how many regular sinners are responsible for the deaths of 10million people?

OK how about Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and the entire membership the Klu Klux Klan

One loves the person without having knowledge of their sinner “status” - this has absolutely no effect.

Really, you mean there is nothing such as ‘manifest sin’, or public sin. So we could, under no circumstances, have talked to any of the people mentioned above with an intent to have them repent and change their lives.

That seems to run contrary to the Gosple.

One does not love in “spite” they simply love, their should be no question about whether it is right, this is what I mean by unconditional love, one loves without wanting someone to change or stay the same, as they shall always love.

So your unconditional love of Klansmen does not entail a desire for them to change? To become closer to God and his plan.

 

[setter]

fix:

A man with SSA sees another man and finds him attractive, no desire to act on it, disordered?

This would be a spontaneous homosexual disordered sexual attraction in the absence of the *moral * disorder of lust, (i.e, disordered sexual desire).

Did I get that right?

 

[Libero]

OK how about Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and the entire membership the Klu Klux Klan

How about the other 5 billion people who engage in trivial sinning?

So your unconditional love of Klansmen does not entail a desire for them to change? To become closer to God and his plan.

I would want to understand them before I demanded them to change, I am of the opinion that many klansmen were simply ordinary people, who would not have engaged in such activities in a more civilised society. (Going off the figure that there were 5 million of them).

 

[fix]

setter:

A natural and well ordered attraction – Yes. A disorder? – Yes, a moral disorder if the spontaneous heterosexual ordered thoughts become lustful – i.e., this results in a disordered desire of an objectively ordered sexual attraction.

There is the difference I am looking for. I can understand that lust is objectively disordered, but that is sin. I am trying to define attraction. Same sex attraction is said to be objectively disordered, not sinful, but not ordered toward the good. The attraction between heterosexual people is not objectively disorderd, unless it is "turned’ sinful.

Back to my example. A married man looks at another women, briefly, and is attracted. He does not think if I could, I would… He simply is attracted to a woman he is not married to. Is such a scene different from a homosexual man who sees another man and is, briefly, attracted without giving in to lustful thoughts?

My question is in an individual case how can the “natural” opposite attraction be objectively disordered? The actions willed may be disordered, but is the attraction itself a disorder?

 

[fix]

setter:

This would be a spontaneous homosexual disordered sexual attraction in the absence of the *moral * disorder of lust, (i.e, disordered sexual desire).

Did I get that right?

Yes. I am trying to grasp the meaning of objectively disordered. I understand it to mean the “attraction” itself is not ordered to good.

In these recent example some have brought up individual cases between heterosexual people that would say the attraction is objectively disordered.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

How about the other 5 billion people who engage in trivial sinning?

Them too, as I try to love them as God does, I want from them what God does, that they they give up any sinful ways and come closer to God.

I would want to understand them before I demanded them to change, I am of the opinion that many klansmen were simply ordinary people, who would not have engaged in such activities in a more civilised society. (Going off the figure that there were 5 million of them).

Ok, suppose you understand them. Would you still desire for them to give up cross burnings and lynchings? Or would there be circumstances where you would have no desire for them to stop lynching people.

Can you forsee any level of ‘understanding’ of them where would you not desire to them to stop lynching people?

Would you try help them stop lynching people? Or would that be a sign that you are not loving them as much as you could?

Would a desire for them to stop lynching be indicative of conditions being placed on unconditional love?

Does God desire them to stop lynching? If so, does that mean that God loves them less?

 

[Libero]

Ok, suppose you understand them. Would you still desire for them to give up cross burnings and lynchings? Or would there be circumstances where you would have no desire for them to stop lynching people.

Would you try help them stop lynching people? Or would that be a sign that you are not loving them as much as you could?

Would a desire for them to stop lynching be indicative of conditions being placed on unconditional love?

Does God desire them to stop lynching? If so, does that mean that God loves them less?

I would, but not due to my love for them. But rather that they are killing, they are removing anothers rights, and they are breaking the law.

I feel, that they two matters are separate - although I am no psychologist, so I am willing to accept they may not be.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

I would, but not due to my love for them. But rather that they are killing, they are removing anothers rights, and they are breaking the law.

I feel, that they two matters are separate - although I am no psychologist, so I am willing to accept they may not be.

So it is not out of Love you would act, but rather to preserve rights and for legal reasons.

And since, above you stated that you cannot seperate the actions from the persons, do you also love their lynchings as well?

If you do not love the lynchings, does that mean you are not loving them unconditionally?

 

[Libero]

Brendan:

And since, above you stated that you cannot seperate the actions from the persons, do you also love their lynchings as well?

If you do not love the lynchings, does that mean you are not loving them unconditionally?

I beleive you can separate a person from their actions, but, one should not do this without the understanding of the person, and in fact, it should be done as a proper process.

Yup, I dislike lynchings, I don’t think it should be done - not to Hitler, not to Stalin, not to anyone. In fact I do not even support execution as a method, (I am not a supporter of Capital Punishment )

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

I beleive you can separate a person from their actions, but, one should not do this without the understanding of the person, and in fact, it should be done as a proper process.

OK, what level of understanding of the person would be required before you would attempt to explain to them that lynching is wrong and that they should not do it?

 

[Libero]

OK, what level of understanding of the person would be required before you would attempt to explain to them that lynching is wrong and that they should not do it?

One where the person has managed to identify exactly why the offender believes lynching is justified, and why this viewpoint has come about.

Note: Of course this is all in an ideal situation, I recognise that the issue is more pressing than being able to sit down and try to build a knowledge.

 

[Brendan]

Libero:

One where the person has managed to identify exactly why the offender believes lynching is justified, and why this viewpoint has come about.

So it is only after such an understanding has been reached that one can begin to seperate love for the action of lynching from the love for the person performing the action?