Can someone help?

[Rau]

This is the first and only time the Church has linked a group of people to a specific
temptation. Please feel free to prove me wrong.

God bless

I’ve no concern over whether it is or is not, thus see no need to prove anything. Do you feel, a need to “prove” something? Your challenge to me seems prideful.

I have no idea why some persons report they experience no attraction to the opposite sex and an attraction to the same sex. I have no idea why some people experience a sexual attraction to children. I have no idea why some people experience eating disorders (though medical science may have some insight regarding this). But in all these cases, the persons concerned are prone to temptations that I, mercifully, am not.

It is plain that persons in differing circumstances may be prone in different degrees to particular temptations. That does not mean that others may never experience those temptations, but it does suggest that for those others, it may be less common and more easily shunned.

I would be interested in your particular remarks on post #149, which distinguishes temptations from the circumstances of the person.

 

[Thorolfr]

I believe the Church must not “use the terms the population uses, hence the use of ‘homosexual persons’ in the catechism”
if in doing so it supports views contrary to Church history, tradition and Apostolic teaching as in this instance.

So what would you suggest that people with same-sex attraction be called by the Church? How should the Church talk about such people? For people with SSA who act on those attractions, should the Church go back to calling them Sodomites? There is a long history of that term being used even though it’s kind of offensive.

 

[jjr9]

I’ve no concern over whether it is or is not, thus see no need to prove anything. Do you feel, a need to “prove” something? Your challenge to me seems prideful.

I have no idea why some persons report they experience no attraction to the opposite sex and an attraction to the same sex. I have no idea why some people experience a sexual attraction to children. I have no idea why some people experience eating disorders (though medical science may have some insight regarding this). But in all these cases, the persons concerned are prone to temptations that I, mercifully, am not.

It is plain that persons in differing circumstances may be prone in different degrees to particular temptations. That does not mean that others may never experience those temptations, but it does suggest that for those others, it may be less common and more easily shunned.

I would be interested in your particular remarks on post #149, which distinguishes temptations from the circumstances of the person.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

So what would you suggest that people with same-sex attraction be called by the Church? How should the Church talk about such people? For people with SSA who act on those attractions, should the Church go back to calling them Sodomites? There is a long history of that term being used even though it’s kind of offensive.

I have no personal preference of terminology I don’t believe what is chosen should promote the false
narrative that a group of people are incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex. At this point
in time I think “homosexuality” and “homosexual person” are poor choices.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

I have no personal preference of terminology I don’t believe what is chosen should promote the false
narrative that a group of people are incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex. At this point
in time I think “homosexuality” and “homosexual person” are poor choices.

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

God bless

With all due respect, the problem is you’re just completely wrong. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but the truth is that for some reason you’re refusing to acknowledge the fact that there are indeed people who, through no fault of their own, are exclusively attracted to the same sex and are incapable of experiencing attraction toward the opposite sex. That’s just reality. I think instead of questioning the Church’s acknowledgement of this fact, you might consider educating yourself on this issue. You seem to be attempting to oversimplify the issue and ignoring evidence in order to preserve a particular belief or theory you have, but it needs to be informed by actual evidence, which is clear and abundant in this case. There are plenty of resources out there that I hope you will utilize. I wish you well.

 

[jjr9]

Thank you for taking time to reply I appreciate you being blunt but that does not necessarily make you correct.

With all due respect, the problem is you’re just completely wrong. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but the truth is that for some reason you’re refusing to acknowledge the fact that there are indeed people who, through no fault of their own, are exclusively attracted to the same sex and are incapable of experiencing attraction toward the opposite sex.That’s just reality.I think instead of questioning the Church’s acknowledgement of this fact, you might consider educating yourself on this issue.

I had a Priest in our Diocese tell me “It is an ‘earthly fact’ that there are homosexual people,” I think he is correct
but just because something is an ‘earthly fact’ does not make it true, the world is not flat and the sun does not circle
the earth.

2358(CCC) originally said:

“They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial”

The present version says:

“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”

The Church corrected this part of the error so I don’t think you should reference the incorrect language that has
been properly removed from the CCC.

You seem to be attempting to oversimplify the issue

The issue is not complicated the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

and ignoring evidence in order to preserve a particular belief or theory you have, but it needs to be informed by actual evidence, which is clear and abundant in this case. There are plenty of resources out there that I hope you will utilize. I wish you well.

Please cite the “actual evidence” and I would be happy to discuss it with you I believe all you can provide are
testimonials and wishful thinking. I wish you well.

God bless

 

[Thorolfr]

I had a Priest in our Diocese tell me “It is an ‘earthly fact’ that there are homosexual people,” I think he is correct
but just because something is an ‘earthly fact’ does not make it true, the world is not flat and the sun does not circle
the earth.

Here you’re saying that something can be a “fact” and can still be untrue. That is a contradiction. The word “fact” (according to Merriam-Webster) means, “something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information.” So if something is a “fact” it must be true. You can’t say that something is a “true piece of information” (i.e. is a “fact”) that is at the same time not true.

 

[jjr9]

Here you’re saying that something can be a “fact” and can still be untrue. That is a contradiction. The word “fact” (according to Merriam-Webster) means, “something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence; a true piece of information.” So if something is a “fact” it must be true. You can’t say that something is a “true piece of information” (i.e. is a “fact”) that is at the same time not true.

The quote was ‘earthly fact’ this Priest’s words not mine but I find it illustrative that something
on earth can be perceived as truth but in the end false such as the earth being flat or the sun circling
the earth. I believe the Church also bought into these ‘earthly facts’ before correcting the error as I am
sure the Church will in this instance of the “homosexual person”.

God bless

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

The Church corrected this part of the error so I don’t think you should reference the incorrect language that has
been properly removed from the CCC.

I did not reference any language in the catechism at all, I’m simply trying to respond to your objection. If it’s not the issue of whether or not there is any choice involved in the matter, I don’t understand what your objection actually is.

I had a Priest in our Diocese tell me “It is an ‘earthly fact’ that there are homosexual people,” I think he is correct
but just because something is an ‘earthly fact’ does not make it true, the world is not flat and the sun does not circle
the earth.

???

So as an “earthly fact” you agree homosexual people exist, but in a “true” sense they do not? I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

The issue is not complicated the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

What makes this statement false? Gay people exist but they are not exclusively attracted toward persons of the same sex? They experience opposite attraction, but don’t know it? Again, no idea what you’re getting at here. What exactly are saying?

I thought I understood your objection, but your response is completely nonsensical to me. I’m sorry, but without some major clarification, I’m certainly not going to be at all helpful in addressing your question. I don’t understand your position at all.

 

[Rau]

My concern is that the Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”. Is this statement true or false?
I believe the statement is false.

You will have heard the Pope acknowledge the Big Bang. Does the Church claim there was a Big Bang, or simply accept this Cosmological finding on the basis of overwhelming evidence? I can’t point you to the evidence for the Big Bang, but I can refer you to your local library if reviewing evidence is really of importance to you.

 

[Rau]

…I had a Priest in our Diocese tell me “It is an ‘earthly fact’ that there are homosexual people,” I think he is correct
but just because something is an ‘earthly fact’ does not make it true, the world is not flat and the sun does not circle
the earth.

The Big Bang seems very likely to be an “earthly fact” (which is all that man can ever know about the reality of his world, by the way). The Church, while accepting it, does not claim it as fact though.

2358(CCC) originally said:

“They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial”

The present version says:

“This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial”

The Church** corrected this part of the error **so I don’t think you should reference the incorrect language that has
been properly removed from the CCC.

Actually, both statements are tolerable, however the former is a poor statement, for it seems both irrelevant and ambiguous. Irrelevant because etiology is of no concern to the Church, and ambiguous because while attractions are not chosen, those who embrace homosexual behaviours do indeed choose their behaviours. The last thing the Church would want is to have anyone think that homosexual behaviours were dictated, not chosen.

I presume you have noted that, if the statement of the 1st Ed of the CCC which you quote above had in fact been a direct error - that is, if in fact persons do choose their condition (by which I mean SSA) - then as per my earlier post #149, you would concur with the view that those who report experiencing SSA and no OSA would in fact be lying. Is that what you believe - they are all liars, and that, somehow, they have chosen the direction of their attraction?

The issue is not complicated the Church makes a claim that…

No, it doesn’t. Your quarrel is with scientific finding, and only then with the Church for accepting it.

Please cite the “actual evidence”…

Please visit a university library.

jjr9 - will you be responding to post #149? If you say ‘no’, I won’t raise it again. But it is odd that you overlook this treatment on the distinction between SSA and temptation, given it was you who asserted they are the same thing.

 

[Rau]

…“homosexual person”.

I wonder…if the Church had used, instead of the phrase, “homosexual person”, the extended verbiage:

“people who believe they experience an exclusive or predominant attraction to the same sex”

would you still have cause for complaint?

After all, such expression might be compatible with your expressed view that the persons are “confused”.

On the other hand, would you say - this is still wrong, there are no such people, they are lying when they give that “testimony”. That would seem to align with your expressed view that they DO choose to be attracted to others of the same sex. [You make this claim when you declare the statement “They do not choose their homosexual condition” an error.]

Are they confused? Or are they lying?

 

[jjr9]

I did not reference any language in the catechism at all, I’m simply trying to respond to your objection. If it’s not the issue of whether or not there is any choice involved in the matter, I don’t understand what your objection actually is.

Your language was similar to language used and then rejected by the Church. I just wanted to point out that your claim
“there are indeed people who, through no fault of their own, are exclusively attracted to the same sex and are incapable
of experiencing attraction toward the opposite sex. That’s just reality. I think instead of questioning the Church’s
acknowledgement of this fact,” The fact is the Church does not hold your view “through no fault of their own” .

???

So as an “earthly fact” you agree homosexual people exist, but in a “true” sense they do not? I have no idea what you’re trying to say.

I don’t agree at all that the “homosexual person” exists. I do believe that Satan is a clever liar who is adept at confusing
individuals.

What makes this statement false? Gay people exist but they are not exclusively attracted toward persons of the same sex? They experience opposite attraction, but don’t know it? Again, no idea what you’re getting at here. What exactly are saying?

Certainly some people entertain thoughts of and some of these engage in same sex behavior people can dwell
on sinful though and have freewill to engage in sinful behavior. It does not follow that they are capable of the capacity
to “experience an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”.

My concern is that the Church is wrong to encourage people to believe that they have the capacity to “experience
an exclusive … sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex”.

I thought I understood your objection, but your response is completely nonsensical to me. I’m sorry, but without some major clarification, I’m certainly not going to be at all helpful in addressing your question. I don’t understand your position at all.

I hope this helps. If you have something you want to examine please pick one thing at a time and
I will be happy to see if we can find some common ground.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

jjr9 - will you be responding to post #149? If you say ‘no’, I won’t raise it again.

No

God bless

 

[Rau]

No

Thank you. That makes sense.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

I hope this helps. If you have something you want to examine please pick one thing at a time and
I will be happy to see if we can find some common ground.

God bless

No. It doesn’t.

Continuing this conversation, however, would be completely unproductive. You are obviously entrenched in your belief, one that I believe not only lacks compassion, but also has the dangerous effect of demonizing and dehumanizing gay people, which to be quite honest is something for which I have very little patience. I doubt very much we would find any common ground, or for that matter even a common language in which we could conduct an intellectual discussion on the topic. I will leave the discussion for those who are far more gifted than I with patience and a better understanding of this type of fundamentalist mindset. We will just have to agree to disagree. God bless you as well.

 

[Rau]

No. It doesn’t.

Continuing this conversation, however, would be completely unproductive. You are obviously entrenched in your belief, one that I believe not only lacks compassion, but also has the dangerous effect of demonizing and dehumanizing gay people, which to be quite honest is something for which I have very little patience. I doubt very much we would find any common ground, or for that matter even a common language in which we could conduct an intellectual discussion on the topic. I will leave the discussion for those who are far more gifted than I with patience and a better understanding of this type of fundamentalist mindset. We will just have to agree to disagree. God bless you as well.

I don’t think he intends to demonise the person experiencing SSA. After all, he declared that SSA is temptation, which itself is not sinful. Certainly he is entrenched in a position without foundation, and I suspect he recognizes some difficulties with his position, noting his preference to avoid responding to some posts which undermine his position.

For comparison, see also the historical posts of Catolico65 and Brass Ankles. They are the same person.

 

[jjr9]

No. It doesn’t.

Sorry

Continuing this conversation, however, would be completely unproductive.

I guess we will never know.

You are obviously entrenched in your belief,

I do believe that no one is incapable of attraction to persons of the opposite sex. You seem unwilling to support
your position.

one that I believe not only lacks compassion, but also has the dangerous effect of demonizing and dehumanizing gay people, which to be quite honest is something for which I have very little patience.

I do not believe it compassionate to encourage people to believe they are something that doesn’t exist when it
leads away from Eternal Life.

I doubt very much we would find any common ground, or for that matter even a common language in which we could conduct an intellectual discussion on the topic.

I guess we will never know.

I will leave the discussion for those who are far more gifted than I with patience and a better understanding of this type of fundamentalist mindset.

I don’t believe name calling is very helpful.

We will just have to agree to disagree. God bless you as well.

Your choice

God bless

 

[jjr9]

I don’t think he intends to demonise the person experiencing SSA. After all, he declared that SSA is temptation, which itself is not sinful. Certainly he is entrenched in a position without foundation, and I suspect he recognizes some difficulties with his position, noting his preference to avoid responding to some posts which undermine his position.

For comparison, see also the historical posts of Catolico65 and Brass Ankles. They are the same person.

Just for clarity I believe the Church has made an error. I do not know who “Catolico65” or “Brass Ankles” are.

The Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to “experience an exclusive …
sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex” I believe that this is a fundamental error by the
Church. The important aspect of the error has to do with the view of temptation the Church has taken
which is inconsistent with any Church history, tradition or prior church teaching. The sexual aspect
is just incidental due to the nature of this “new” Church teaching.

I did not respond to post #149 because I found it tangential.

God bless

 

[Rau]

…The Church makes a claim that a group of people has the capacity to "experience an exclusive …

No, it doesn’t. Your argument first and foremost is with science.

…The important aspect of the error has to do with the view of temptation the Church has taken which is inconsistent with any Church history, tradition or prior church teaching.

No, it’s not. The temptations each person experiences may be influenced by their own unique circumstances. I gave you examples in other posts - you chose not to respond.

The sexual aspect is just incidental due to the nature of this “new” Church teaching.

Without reference to sexuality, what is your concern?