Cardinal: Gays "will never enter the Reign of God"

[BobObob]

…CONTINUED

Herein lies the crux of my problem with many of these so-called “humane” approaches to the question. They completely emasculate Christ and His power to heal. They apply a relaxed standard of effort to those who experience same-sex attraction telling them both that there may exist “hope” for relief from their condition but that they should never expect that God will provide it. Instead, they are encouraged in a Manichean sexual ethic that is redefined as “chastity.” The whole project is so fraught with internal contradictions and affronts to Church teaching that it could only survive in these dark days apologetic illiteracy.

I have not in this post mentioned what you should say to a person with SSA.

I have not emasculated Christ and His power to heal. Christ can do whatever He wants. Sometimes what we think is good, Christ sees a better alternative.

Not having to get rid of one’s SSA is only a relaxed standard IF the mere experience of SSA is in itself a sin. You seem to have worked with your reason under the presumption that having SSA is a moral evil in and of itself, and than that affected your interpretations of the Church and Aquinas to come up with the conclusion that you already had (either consciously or subconsciously).

Regarding Church teaching, the Church has said this:

CCC 1763 “The term ‘passions’ belongs to the Christian patrimony. Feelings or passions are emotions or movements of the sensitive appetite that incline us to act in regard to something felt or imagined to be good or evil.”

CCC 1767 “Passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.’ It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.”

CCC 1772 “The principle passions are love and hatred, desire and fear, joy, sadness, and anger.”

If desire is a passion, and passions are emotions, and passions are neither good nor evil, than isn’t the word “desire” used in CCC 1849 a different meaning than emotions or movements of the sensitive appetite? Wouldn’t another use of the word “desire” that is not a passion be “will”.

CCC 1849 (partial) “[Sin] has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

It seems to me that Church teaching hold that emotions and movements of the sensitive appetite, which sexual attraction is, are not sinful in themselves, and that one does not have a strict obligation to get rid of perverse ones, so long as he can control them in order to do what pleases God.

My Christ is the Christ who heals those who make the effort to reach out and merely brush His robes. He is not a Christ who is wholly indifferent to the sufferings of His creation and, out of apparent vanity, withholds such help to subsequently dazzle creation with His redemptive power or to just provide evidence against His creation come Judgment. My Christ is the Christ who demands purity in both the internal and external forums. He is not a Christ Who privileges one over the other, accepting a man’s corporeal conduct while remaining wholly indifferent to the state of that same man’s heart. Mine is a Christ who prizes genuine effort made on His behalf rather than self-serving half-measures which, in the end, amount merely to sloth.

I never implied that Christ was indifferent to the sufferings of His creation. To say that Christ will temporary allow his creation to suffer is not the same as saying that He is indifferent to it. One saint while suffering asked God, “is this how you treat your friends,” to which He responded, “Yes.” Christ may allow people to suffer for some sort of good.

I addressed “purity” above.

If having SSA is not in itself a sin, then to say that man does not have to get rid of his SSA in order to be chaste is not a relaxed standard. He has the same standard of everyone else who is not married (assuming he is not married to someone of the opposite sex). You again assert that everyone who has SSA is in contempt against God.

I would therefore caution you to make sure that the God a man with same-sex attractions prostrates himself to is indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Peter and the Blessed Virgin. It would be a tragedy of unimaginable magnitude if, at the point of death, such a man comes to realize that his was a idolatrous piety directed entirely to a convenient fantasy of his own creation.

Why do you assume that everyone who has SSA creates a notion of God that is “a idolatrous piety directed entirely to a convenient fantasy of his own creation.”

If someone presented reasonable evidence to you that your view on something was wrong, would you be willing to re-evaluate your world view and admit that you are wrong? The reason why I ask this is because this seems to be going nowhere. It seems to me that you are the type of person who, once he has come to a conclusion on a major topic, will never change that position, regardless of what evidence someone else may show him that supports a different position.

You assert that those with SSA have created a fantasy world to fit their view. However, anyone can do that. Each individual, in evaluating his own reason, need to be able to acknowledge his own presuppositions and biases in order to reason most effectively. How do you know you have not created a fantasy world to fit your view that may be based off of pre-conceived notions?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Just for clarification:

What do you mean by “this life style” (when talking about sin)?

By “this life style” do you mean a life in which a person engages in homosexual acts and/or condones homosexual acts? If so, than I may have misinterpreted your initial post, and we may be in agreement.

Or by “this lifestyle” do you mean a life in which someone shows traits that are commonly attributed to people with SSA (such as feminine mannerisms in men), regardless of how they behave sexually?

That is what i mean. lifestyle to me is when someone is living in a certain way. i am not talking those who just have tendency but restrain from practicing that desire. the behave must also be toned down. the attitude must be changed too.

 

[canadianguy1143]

It seems to me that your conception of Christ and the manner in which He bestows His graces and healing has more in common with Calvin than with Rome. It seems that the question of whether or not Christ will heal someone who reaches out to Him is not defined by the faith of the individual but, rather, by Christ’s arbitrary yet sovereign decision, completely unaccountable to human reason. I caution that a Christ who is so stingy in the fashion with healing grace may just as easily be stingy with salvific grace. To say that Christ would deny healing to any person with same-sex attractions who asks for it is to say that such a man is doomed to the sexually compulsive nature of his condition in this life and, then, the necessary eternal torment of the next. Such a conception of God is monstrous and quite alien to the Tradition of the Church.

To try and get around this, you have offered strained reasoning which essentially says that the Church has knowingly misrepresented one of her own doctors, and applied a lot of fancy excuse-making for those who have simply failed to do what is required of them. You seem to conceive of some indeterminate state in which the presence of God fails to cast out impurity but that, nevertheless, no impurity will be admitted to the Beatific Vision. You seem never to even bother asking whether or not this condition you’ve made up might just not be one of the same pathological delusions that allows another man to say that he “loves” the same-sex partner he regularly sodomizes.

Herein lies the crux of my problem with many of these so-called “humane” approaches to the question. They completely emasculate Christ and His power to heal. They apply a relaxed standard of effort to those who experience same-sex attraction telling them both that there may exist “hope” for relief from their condition but that they should never expect that God will provide it. Instead, they are encouraged in a Manichean sexual ethic that is redefined as “chastity.” The whole project is so fraught with internal contradictions and affronts to Church teaching that it could only survive in these dark days apologetic illiteracy.

My Christ is the Christ who heals those who make the effort to reach out and merely brush His robes. He is not a Christ who is wholly indifferent to the sufferings of His creation and, out of apparent vanity, withholds such help to subsequently dazzle creation with His redemptive power or to just provide evidence against His creation come Judgment. My Christ is the Christ who demands purity in both the internal and external forums. He is not a Christ Who privileges one over the other, accepting a man’s corporeal conduct while remaining wholly indifferent to the state of that same man’s heart. Mine is a Christ who prizes genuine effort made on His behalf rather than self-serving half-measures which, in the end, amount merely to sloth.

I would therefore caution you to make sure that the God a man with same-sex attractions prostrates himself to is indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Peter and the Blessed Virgin. It would be a tragedy of unimaginable magnitude if, at the point of death, such a man comes to realize that his was a idolatrous piety directed entirely to a convenient fantasy of his own creation.

Other Eric, since on your profile you indicate yourself as a lapsed Catholic, I can’t take anything you say blindly as the Catholic Church is the One True Church and what is contained in here is not totally correct as to what the Cardinal truly said. I would advise sincere Catholic to do the same.

 

[BloodyRose3000]

Other Eric, I read your comments on a previous thread (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=373917) and I must say, you genuinely discuss me. To propose that if one is *unable *to turn heterosexual they are essentially worthless, lepers, and have absolutely no vocation … it’s plain disgusting. Besides that fact that it’s not in any way supported by the church nor any scientific studies, it’s also hateful. As a person who has a same sex attraction but has also been abstinent all my life, it’s particularly distressing to read someone essentially telling me that being abstinent is irrelevant and, if I can’t just *change *, all efforts to live a life with God are completely pointless. So what, I should then just forget about God according to you. That’s practically atheist mongering! (to this I’m sure your response will be “no, you’re supposed to live your life trying to become heterosexual” But what happens then if you’re unable to *just *do that. even if you’ve spent years trying to do that). As far as I’m concerned, that’s like telling a person of color that if they can’t become white through prayer and “therapy” (emphasis on quotations as such gay “therapy” has been proven false and is actually opposed by the apa), they can have no connection with God … and that’s that. I had gone through years of believing that God hated me because of something I had no control over and that He wouldn’t change despite years of genuine prayer, and reading your comments almost puts me back in such a state of mind. Everyone has their struggles and has to deal with them; priest cannot act on their sexuality and, thus, have to work on not engaging/enternating them. The catholic position is essentially that is works the same way with those who have same sex attractions (live in abstinence etc). To preach the disgusting forms of heresy, misunderstanding, apathy and hate that you do makes you almost non Christian as far as I’m concerned. *I’ll *pray for you.