T
Thorolfr
Guest
So how do you propose that they get unconfused?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
at9009
Guest
Acknowledging a struggle isn’t the same as approving particular actionsPsychology can be good and helpful it is often open to interpretation are you suggesting that the Church
should recognize the “transgender person” and then any other self identified type of person psychology
puts the stamp of approval on? Some in psychology present that God is a delusion should we accept
that as well?
As for autism I believe that this is a physical defect I do not believe that people who consider themselves
a “homosexual person” are physically defective but rather confused.
God bless
Also people with SSA aren’t confused and suddenly become oppostite sex attracted (as if being opposite attracted is required to live a holy and virtuous life). That’s kind of a demeaning attidue to many who struggle with this cross and trivializes their lives. For some its transitory but not for everyone. Just look at Courage.
R
Rau
Guest
I agree. Quite an extraordinary one actually.…As for autism I believe that this is a physical defect
I guess that is a scientific judgement, but the science has not been able to reach that conclusion yet. Confused, or suffering the effects of a defect, they nevertheless experience SSA, while for others of us, even the most promiscuous, the thought is repulsive. I can’t think of a reason to reject the idea that some physical (ie biological) defect influences the various dimensions of sexuality, much as it influences other aspects of ourselves.(but) I do not believe that people who consider themselves a “homosexual person” are physically defective but rather confused.
J
jjr9
Guest
I believe that all things are possible with the the Grace of God my concern is that the Church isSo how do you propose that they get unconfused?
contributing to the confusion by accepting what I believe to be a false premiss the “homosexual
person”.
God bless
J
jjr9
Guest
I can not tell you what brings any particular person to any specific sinful behavior or temptationAcknowledging a struggle isn’t the same as approving particular actions
Also people with SSA aren’t confused and suddenly become oppostite sex attracted (as if being opposite attracted is required to live a holy and virtuous life). That’s kind of a demeaning attidue to many who struggle with this cross and trivializes their lives. For some its transitory but not for everyone. Just look at Courage.
I do not wish to offend anyone but I believe the Church is wrong to lay the stumbling block of the
“homosexual person” on the path to eternal life.
God bless
J
jjr9
Guest
I don’t know of any right and just reason for the Church to accept what I believe to be the false premissI agree. Quite an extraordinary one actually.
I guess that is a scientific judgement, but the science has not been able to reach that conclusion yet. Confused, or suffering the effects of a defect, they nevertheless experience SSA, while for others of us, even the most promiscuous, the thought is repulsive. I can’t think of a reason to reject the idea that some physical (ie biological) defect influences the various dimensions of sexuality, much as it influences other aspects of ourselves.
of the “homosexual person”.
God bless
R
Rau
Guest
Undoubtedly true. But how should the person experiencing SSA go about becoming ‘unconfused’. Is it exclusively a matter of prayer? Is it a treatment? Or is the confusion permanent?I believe that all things are possible with the the Grace of God…
R
Rau
Guest
Oh dear, you’ve come full circle.I don’t know of any right and just reason for the Church to accept what I believe to be the false premiss
of the “homosexual person”.
God bless
I can’t think of a reason to reject the idea that some physical (ie biological) defect influences the various dimensions of sexuality, much as it influences other aspects of ourselves.
J
jjr9
Guest
Please don’t look to me for these answers I believe we all should have a personal relationship with the LordUndoubtedly true. But how should the person experiencing SSA go about becoming ‘unconfused’. Is it exclusively a matter of prayer? Is it a treatment? Or is the confusion permanent?
the Lord can and will answer our questions.
God bless
J
jjr9
Guest
Forgive me but I don’t understand what you are saying.Oh dear, you’ve come full circle.
I can’t think of a reason to reject the idea that some physical (ie biological) defect influences the various dimensions of sexuality, much as it influences other aspects of ourselves.
God bless
T
Tim_Staples
Guest
I think we have to make distinctions here. 1. The original wording of the Catechism needed to be changed. I agree with you that “They do not choose their homosexual condition…” was too all-inclusive. That is why it was changed from the first edition written in French for the Latin and authoritative edition. Some do choose their condition and it is not a trial for them at all. However, I think in the end, the Church is smarter than you are and the Church is correct in saying some don’t, as in the cases I told you about that I know of in my own experience of dealing with people who suffer from this defect.
The bottom line: these people were not responsible for suffering the abuse that led to their condition.
But you should not be citing 2358 from the first edition of the Catechism, because that is not the teaching of the Church. It was corrected.
The present version represents the teaching of the Church. It rightly says, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
Then, we have to deal with the idea of the “homosexual person.” The Catechism does not define what it means by using this language. This does not mean that somehow these people have a “homosexual nature.” The Church does not say this. Our nature as human persons is to be created in the image and likeness of God. And so it is for one who the Catechism refers to as a “homosexual person.” This defect is not in his or her nature. If it is a defect it represents a lack of some good that ought to be there. It is either a physical or moral evil. So “homosexual person” must be understood to simply mean we are dealing with “persons” who experience SSA, whether wanted or unwanted. For some of these people, this SSA is exclusive and represents a cross for them.
If one is reducing a person to an impulse then he is misrepresenting what the Church teaches. I agree with you that the term, or terms “homosexual person” are imprudent. I would not say in “error,” because the Church is smarter than I am. I would not say that. The Church does not use the terms in an errant way, but some may well (like you) interpret it wrongly. Would we say someone is a “liar person” because they are pathological in their lying? Well, I suppose we could inasmuch as he is a “person” and he is a pathological liar. But I think that language could be confusing. The same could be said for “homosexual person.” He is a person and he suffers from SSA so the terms could be and are employed, “homosexual person,” but I agree with you that this is confusing for some people.
If one takes it to the point, as you say. of saying, “I am a homosexual person, I do not
have free will to have a holy fulfilled life in marriage why don’t I just give into what the Church says that I am,” that is taking this to the point of error. And that is to say something that the Church does not say. In fact, the Church condemns that as error.
The bottom line: these people were not responsible for suffering the abuse that led to their condition.
But you should not be citing 2358 from the first edition of the Catechism, because that is not the teaching of the Church. It was corrected.
The present version represents the teaching of the Church. It rightly says, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
Then, we have to deal with the idea of the “homosexual person.” The Catechism does not define what it means by using this language. This does not mean that somehow these people have a “homosexual nature.” The Church does not say this. Our nature as human persons is to be created in the image and likeness of God. And so it is for one who the Catechism refers to as a “homosexual person.” This defect is not in his or her nature. If it is a defect it represents a lack of some good that ought to be there. It is either a physical or moral evil. So “homosexual person” must be understood to simply mean we are dealing with “persons” who experience SSA, whether wanted or unwanted. For some of these people, this SSA is exclusive and represents a cross for them.
If one is reducing a person to an impulse then he is misrepresenting what the Church teaches. I agree with you that the term, or terms “homosexual person” are imprudent. I would not say in “error,” because the Church is smarter than I am. I would not say that. The Church does not use the terms in an errant way, but some may well (like you) interpret it wrongly. Would we say someone is a “liar person” because they are pathological in their lying? Well, I suppose we could inasmuch as he is a “person” and he is a pathological liar. But I think that language could be confusing. The same could be said for “homosexual person.” He is a person and he suffers from SSA so the terms could be and are employed, “homosexual person,” but I agree with you that this is confusing for some people.
If one takes it to the point, as you say. of saying, “I am a homosexual person, I do not
have free will to have a holy fulfilled life in marriage why don’t I just give into what the Church says that I am,” that is taking this to the point of error. And that is to say something that the Church does not say. In fact, the Church condemns that as error.
T
Tim_Staples
Guest
As far as your statement, “There are many temptations in the world do you know of any other temptation given similar treatment by the Church?” you make a valid point, Jjr9. Though we certainly could give “similar treatment” to other disorders, we don’t. I would argue we do because homosexual sin has become so prevalent in the world today. It is all over the media from movies to television, etc. We have movements to “Make Gay Okay” as our friend Robert Reilly says in his new book (that I highly recommend).
The Church has always dealt with the matters that are most pressing in a given time. This is a matter that became most pressing in the mid to late 20th century and now into the 21st century.
The Church has always dealt with the matters that are most pressing in a given time. This is a matter that became most pressing in the mid to late 20th century and now into the 21st century.
R
Rau
Guest
What does “their homosexual condition” mean? Is it a reference to a state of “attraction” (ie. of “being”) or to a state “embraced” (ie. a state of ''behaving")? It is the latter which the Catechism defines as “homosexuality” in 2357 when it states "Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. Certainly most of us choose our behaviour, whatever it may be. But it is often challenging, to say the least, to “choose” a preference, or to be even aware that any choice or preference (for that individual) is/was there to be made.I think we have to make distinctions here. 1. The original wording of the Catechism needed to be changed. I agree with you that “They do not choose their homosexual condition…” was too all-inclusive. That is why it was changed from the first edition written in French for the Latin and authoritative edition. Some do choose their condition and it is not a trial for them at all. However, I think in the end, the Church is smarter than you are and the Church is correct in saying some don’t, as in the cases I told you about that I know of in my own experience of dealing with people who suffer from this defect.
To whom does the term “homosexual persons” in 2359 refer? All those with the inclination, or just those embracing it and behaving accordingly? I have assumed it is a reference to all those “who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” rather than just those embracing and choosing the relevant behaviours. Perhaps there is some lack of clarity here too.
I find it bizarre that anyone debates that such is the experience of some persons, but I agree it would have been better to avoid using the expression “homosexual persons”, if for no other reason than to avoid creating a label. The substance of what is being said would, however, be unchanged.
Clearly - the statement in question from the early French edition was at the least ambiguous, and removing it makes sense.
J
jjr9
Guest
I don’t claim to be smarter that anyone. This is not complicated the Church makes the claim that a group ofI think we have to make distinctions here. 1. The original wording of the Catechism needed to be changed. I agree with you that “They do not choose their homosexual condition…” was too all-inclusive. That is why it was changed from the first edition written in French for the Latin and authoritative edition. Some do choose their condition and it is not a trial for them at all. However, I think in the end, the Church is smarter than you are and the Church is correct in saying some don’t, as in the cases I told you about that I know of in my own experience of dealing with people who suffer from this defect.
The bottom line: these people were not responsible for suffering the abuse that led to their condition.
But you should not be citing 2358 from the first edition of the Catechism, because that is not the teaching of the Church. It was corrected.
The present version represents the teaching of the Church. It rightly says, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.”
Then, we have to deal with the idea of the “homosexual person.” The Catechism does not define what it means by using this language. This does not mean that somehow these people have a “homosexual nature.” The Church does not say this. Our nature as human persons is to be created in the image and likeness of God. And so it is for one who the Catechism refers to as a “homosexual person.” This defect is not in his or her nature. If it is a defect it represents a lack of some good that ought to be there. It is either a physical or moral evil. So “homosexual person” must be understood to simply mean we are dealing with “persons” who experience SSA, whether wanted or unwanted. For some of these people, this SSA is exclusive and represents a cross for them.
If one is reducing a person to an impulse then he is misrepresenting what the Church teaches. I agree with you that the term, or terms “homosexual person” are imprudent. I would not say in “error,” because the Church is smarter than I am. I would not say that. The Church does not use the terms in an errant way, but some may well (like you) interpret it wrongly. Would we say someone is a “liar person” because they are pathological in their lying? Well, I suppose we could inasmuch as he is a “person” and he is a pathological liar. But I think that language could be confusing. The same could be said for “homosexual person.” He is a person and he suffers from SSA so the terms could be and are employed, “homosexual person,” but I agree with you that this is confusing for some people.
If one takes it to the point, as you say. of saying, “I am a homosexual person, I do not
have free will to have a holy fulfilled life in marriage why don’t I just give into what the Church says that I am,” that is taking this to the point of error. And that is to say something that the Church does not say. In fact, the Church condemns that as error.
people have the capacity to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”
is this statement true or false?
As you point out “The original wording of the Catechism needed to be changed.” so the Church is capable of an
error and correcting the error.
I do not believe that anyone has the capacity to prove the statement false if the Church wants to claim the
statement true it should present a truly right and just reason. I have been looking for that reason and have
concluded the reason does not exist I must conclude the Church has made an error.
What do you believe a truly right and just reason for this claim by the Church?
God bless
J
jjr9
Guest
I believe SSA and same sex behavior are nothing new St. Paul needed to address this(Romans 1:24-28). What is newAs far as your statement, “There are many temptations in the world do you know of any other temptation given similar treatment by the Church?” you make a valid point, Jjr9. Though we certainly could give “similar treatment” to other disorders, we don’t. I would argue we do because homosexual sin has become so prevalent in the world today. It is all over the media from movies to television, etc. We have movements to “Make Gay Okay” as our friend Robert Reilly says in his new book (that I highly recommend).
The Church has always dealt with the matters that are most pressing in a given time. This is a matter that became most pressing in the mid to late 20th century and now into the 21st century.
is the Church embracing what I believe to be the false premiss of the “homosexual person”. I do not believe the Church
accepting something false to be true is what the Lord had in mind for His Church. I have been told:
“I would say that the Church has little choice but make some use of the vocabulary in current usage in the wider society, or risk becoming unintelligible or distant.”
I would say that the Church has obligation not to make some use of the vocabulary in current usage in the wider society
if it corrupts the teachings and traditions of the church. I believe the Lord gave us His Church to be a pillar of truth in a world
full of temptation not to be a barometer of the current secular consensus as it has in this instance.
I believe there is a conscious effort by some in the Church to normalize the “homosexual person” look at:
1 Corinthians 6:9
NAB 1970 edition
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites”
NAB 1986 edition
"Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither
fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals”
NAB 2011 edition(current edition)
“Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived;
neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites”
Code:
This translation was changed and then changed back. The USCCB site has the NABlanguage as the NAB 1986 edition.
Code:
I believe that the Church has always been open to correcting an error. Look at“And when Cephas(Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.”
God bless
J
jjr9
Guest
Is this your truly right and just reason for the Church to make the claim that a group of people have the capacityOh dear, you’ve come full circle.
I can’t think of a reason to reject the idea that some physical (ie biological) defect influences the various dimensions of sexuality, much as it influences other aspects of ourselves.
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”?
I reject your reason as it is not consistent with any prior Church history, teaching or tradition that I am aware of
and the “homosexual person” is not consistent with natural law or God’s Plan for man from what I have seen thank
you for presenting your reason most do not.
If you could present proof that some “physical (ie biological) defect” is at the root of the “homosexual person” then
you would have a valid point. I am certain you will never find such a defect.
I am also certain the Lord will correct this error by His Church in His Time not mine.
God bless
R
Rau
Guest
Is this your truly right and just reason for the Church to make the claim that a group of people have the capacity
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”?
I reject your reason as it is not consistent with any prior Church history, teaching or tradition that I am aware of
and the “homosexual person” is not consistent with natural law or God’s Plan for man from what I have seen thank
you for presenting your reason most do not.
If you could present proof that some “physical (ie biological) defect” is at the root of the “homosexual person” then
you would have a valid point. I am certain you will never find such a defect.
I am also certain the Lord will correct this error by His Church in His Time not mine.
God bless
R
Rau
Guest
Good heavens no! I was speculating about a possible cause of SSA, not the fact of its existence or why the Church accepts it exists. In regard to the latter, I can only imagine the Church is persuaded of the existence of the condition in light of decades of scientific studies and the testimony of so many affected persons. (I understand that you reject those studies on religious grounds. The Church herself has no teaching authority on scientific matters such as this - be it the fact of or cause of SSA - but cannot err on matters of faith and morals - such as the evil of same sex acts.)Is this your truly right and just reason for the Church to make the claim that a group of people have the capacity
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”?
I reject your reason as it is not consistent with any prior Church history, teaching or tradition that I am aware of
and the “homosexual person” is not consistent with natural law or God’s Plan for man from what I have seen thank
you for presenting your reason most do not.
If you could present proof that some “physical (ie biological) defect” is at the root of the “homosexual person” then
you would have a valid point. I am certain you will never find such a defect.
I am also certain the Lord will correct this error by His Church in His Time not mine.
God bless
I really have no idea why SSA arises. I note the Church also expresses a belief that the factors that give rise to SSA (and an absence of OSA) are unknown. (That’s the position taken by science at this time, and accepted by the Church.). I can only say I have no reason to reject the possibility of biological defects influencing SSA or other strange conditions that affect man. (Gender dysphoria comes to mind.) Do you have a reason to reject even the possibility of such a factor?
J
jjr9
Guest
It is not clear to me what your position is do you believe the Church’s claim that a group of people have the capacityGood heavens no! I was speculating about a possible cause of SSA, not the fact of its existence or why the Church accepts it exists. In regard to the latter, I can only imagine the Church is persuaded of the existence of the condition in light of decades of scientific studies and the testimony of so many affected persons. (I understand that you reject those studies on religious grounds. The Church herself has no teaching authority on scientific matters such as this - be it the fact of or cause of SSA - but cannot err on matters of faith and morals - such as the evil of same sex acts.)
I really have no idea why SSA arises. I note the Church also expresses a belief that the factors that give rise to SSA (and an absence of OSA) are unknown. (That’s the position taken by science at this time, and accepted by the Church.). I can only say I have no reason to reject the possibility of biological defects influencing SSA or other strange conditions that affect man. (Gender dysphoria comes to mind.) Do you have a reason to reject even the possibility of such a factor?
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” true or false?
My reason “to reject even the possibility of such a factor” remains it is not consistent with any prior Church history,
teaching or tradition that I am aware of and the “homosexual person” is not consistent with natural law or God’s Plan for
man from what I have seen.
God bless
R
Rau
Guest
The church generally accepts established scientific observations (climate change also comes to mind) for she has no independent expertise or teaching authority outside faith and morals. So, as I understand it, the Church accepts that some individuals experience a predominant or exclusive attraction to the same sex, and further accepts the scientific conclusion that, as yet, we don’t know what mechanism(s) cause this. To accept this does not contradict any tenet of faith and morals.It is not clear to me what your position is do you believe the Church’s claim that a group of people have the capacity
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” true or false?
My reason “to reject even the possibility of such a factor” remains it is not consistent with any prior Church history,
teaching or tradition that I am aware of and the “homosexual person” is not consistent with natural law or God’s Plan for
man from what I have seen.
God bless
It does not surprise me that the Church has not addressed this point historically (which, I realize, is of concern to you) for the assembly of such scientific evidence and its widespread study is a 20th century occurrence, and not the province of the Church. Of course, our moral behaviours are within her province, and she teaches clearly about unacceptable use of the sexual faculty and has done so consistently throughout history.
Many difficult situations confront man. How these are to be related to “Gods plan” is not something I well understand. But perhaps Gods plan is that we live a good life, according to his law, the best we can, whatever adversities we face.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.