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

[Other_Eric]

Fr. Martin’s article goes on to cite the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, which proclaims a different view from yours, and the Cardinal’s: *“By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” *

The Cardinal’s opinion on whether homosexual orientation is a “choice” is just that…his opinion. (Why anyone would choose an orientation that is reviled by many is completely beyond me.)

It goes without saying that homosexual activity is objectively sinful.

In the first place, the editorial comments of a Jesuit should be suspect to anyone with a modicum of orthodoxy. “Inner freedom” and “Christian perfection” necessarily require a sexual orientation directed towards the opposite sex. “Disinterested friendship” is best read in the context of the Church’s Tradition of warning against particular friendship and would therefore imply a friendship lacking in a certain intimacy, such as the professional environment found in a psychologist’s office. Sacramental grace is best sought only after appreciable progress in therapy has been made (and here note that the Church directs the help of disinterested friendship in advance of the reception of sacramental grace), lest the individual commit sacrilege against God’s sacraments and fall deeper into error.

 

[whatevergirl]

*I’m wondering though if being attracted to someone of the same sex, is really more a cross to bear or struggle, than it is a sin. It could lead one to sin, and of course, if any of us were to carry lustful thoughts in our minds over another, same sex or otherwise, that is also sinful. (as Jesus speaks to His followers about those who look with women in lust, are guilty of adultery in their minds) But, if someone is struggling with SSA, and they don’t ever act it out…they continue to go to confession, I would think that God would show mercy. The reality of heaven is that none of us ‘deserve’ it, none of us can ‘earn’ it…it is only by God’s mercy and the sacrifice that Christ made for us all, that any of us will arrive there. I think the Cardinal spoke in a too broad a fashion, the premise is good, but he doesn’t know who will go to heaven, because he doesn’t know the mind of all men and women, he doesn’t know if people are ignorant of moral law, and he doesn’t know how God will deal with all of us. I think it’s safe to ‘‘assume’’ that if ANY OF US are in sexual sin, and don’t repent, that odds could be good we might not see heaven. But, I don’t think any mere mortal can with absolute certainty say…this one or that one ‘‘will never enter the reign of God.’’ *

 

[chrysostim83]

What interesting views you have, Other Eric. I’ll just quickly reply to some of your rebuttals, and then give you the last word.

1. “Being indistinguishable from an action” and “being an action” are not the same, so it does not follow that the experience of a manifestation of an appetite can be sinful.
2. The teenager’s appetite for tobacco is not chosen: each particular act of smoking is chosen, but the teenager does not choose not to be able to stop. It would be more accurate to say that he elects to become a smoker since electing something does not involve intention.
3. Suppose a straight guy came up to you and asked how he could experience same sex attraction. Would you be able to give him a sure-fire recipe that would enable him to choose to have these experiences? I know of no such recipe, and I don’t think anyone else knows one either. But if you’ve got one…
4. By saying a gay person chooses to be gay by not getting “treatment,” you are drawing a moral conclusion from the assertions of NARTH and the implicit assumption that the truth of these assertions is obvious. However, if a gay person does not believe in NARTH (there is honestly no reason why he should), then this person’s choice not to pursue “treatment” does not reflect poorly on his will. As a philosopher once said, “What cannot be otherwise, we accept.”
5. What you say in the quotation that follows makes it even more difficult to believe that the experience of same sex attraction could be addictive:

The experience of same-sex attractions is nothing so benign as to be merely disconcerting. It is a direct affront to God’s creation of an individual as either male or female and, as such, calls into question the individual’s conception of what it means to be human.

You haven’t shown us why it would be difficult to stop choosing to experience same sex attractions if the experience of these attractions is not addictive.

 

[Other_Eric]

The Cardinal was not teaching the Catholic truth.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17921

As anyone familiar with Thomistic theology, Scripture and the Tradition of the Church can attest, Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan’s statement is far closer to the truth of the matter than the impotent cant of yet another leftist Jesuit who can’t even quote from the current English edition of the Catechism. Further, it ought to be remarked that Cardinal Barragan makes no claim that he was misquoted, as the CNA article leads one to believe.

It needs to be remarked that “[m]oral perfection consists in man’s being moved to the good not by his will alone, but also by his sensitive appetite.” (1) To merely resist an errant impulse, such as same-sex attraction, is not properly called virtue but, rather, continence, an imperfect result. (2) To persist in such a lukewarm state is to risk the judgment of Christ when He says, “o, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (3)

It is worth recalling that the Catechism directs us to accept those with same-sex attractions “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (4) It is a counterfeit of these virtues to implicitly relax moral standards by suggesting that a person with same-sex attractions merely not act on the impulse and do nothing to correct it. Respect demands that we hold unwaveringly to the idea that the man with same-sex attractions has not been given a burden he cannot overcome. Compassion demands we do everything to encourage him to overcome his disorder, through punitive legislation and the like. Sensitivity is not to be confused with a saccharine-sweet permissive attitude but should, instead, be a firm and unyielding presentation of the truth that the disorder can be overcome in anyone who wills it.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 1770. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5W.HTM

(2) See: Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1920. New Advent. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition, 2006. Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 58, Art. 3, Reply 2. Available online at: newadvent.org/summa/2058.htm#article3

(3) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Rev. 3:16. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation3.htm

(4) Catechism of the Catholic Church. ¶ 2358. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

 

[whatevergirl]

It is worth recalling that the Catechism directs us to accept those with same-sex attractions “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” (4) It is a counterfeit of these virtues to implicitly relax moral standards by suggesting that a person with same-sex attractions merely not act on the impulse and do nothing to correct it. Respect demands that we hold unwaveringly to the idea that the man with same-sex attractions has not been given a burden he cannot overcome. Compassion demands we do everything to encourage him to overcome his disorder, through punitive legislation and the like. Sensitivity is not to be confused with a saccharine-sweet permissive attitude but should, instead, be a firm and unyielding presentation of the truth that the disorder can be overcome in anyone who wills it.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 1770. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5W.HTM

(2) See: Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1920. New Advent. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition, 2006. Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 58, Art. 3, Reply 2. Available online at: newadvent.org/summa/2058.htm#article3

(3) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Rev. 3:16. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/revelation3.htm

(4) Catechism of the Catholic Church. ¶ 2358. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

*I agree…I don’t think anyone here is saying that we shouldn’t help those who struggle with SSA to not fight against it, and therefore repent. *

 

[fish90]

In the first place, the editorial comments of a Jesuit should be suspect to anyone with a modicum of orthodoxy. “Inner freedom” and “Christian perfection” necessarily require a sexual orientation directed towards the opposite sex. “Disinterested friendship” is best read in the context of the Church’s Tradition of warning against particular friendship and would therefore imply a friendship lacking in a certain intimacy, such as the professional environment found in a psychologist’s office. Sacramental grace is best sought only after appreciable progress in therapy has been made (and here note that the Church directs the help of disinterested friendship in advance of the reception of sacramental grace), lest the individual commit sacrilege against God’s sacraments and fall deeper into error.

I cannot deny nor confirm any unorthodox Jesuits. If they are unorthodox, then they are unorthodox. If they are orthodox, then they are orthodox. I do understand your criticism of the Jesuits (not many university’s make the Cardinal Newman list), but please do not forget the possibility that there are orthodox Jesuits is very real; look at Fr. Pacwa from EWTN. I consider him to be a very orthodox Jesuit.

Now, there are cases in which the effects of original sin are unavoidable. Let’s say I am married to the most wonderful girl. A very attractive woman other than my wife comes along and I feel attracted to her. In this situation, I am commanded to avoid the temptation of lustful thoughts and other sexual sin. As long as the experience is just one of being attracted to the other woman, I am not sinning. If other temptations win, I would be sinning like with lustful thoughts.

The homosexual who experiences an attraction and does not act upon their temptations is in my opinion like the married man who is attracted to another woman. Now, homosexual attraction is something that has to be remedied for there are instances of “going straight” (I do not know the correct terminology). Homosexuals must strive for this, but in the meantime they are not sinning just by being attracted to the same sex. The period of correcting their homosexuality may take time and the act of correcting their sinful outlook must be corrected.

In summary, a homosexual must remain celibate in all instances. He/she must bear this cross and avoid the temptations they undergo. Good Christians must be accepting of these celibate homosexuals and not caste them away for a Christian’s duty is also to be another person’s keeper. They are God’s children like every one of us, but Christians must remember that compassion without justice is stupid.

The celibate homosexual who battles his/her temptations while making an effort to correct their homosexuality is not going to hell. That is Catholic teaching.

Of course, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Other_Eric]

What interesting views you have, Other Eric. I’ll just quickly reply to some of your rebuttals, and then give you the last word.

1. “Being indistinguishable from an action” and “being an action” are not the same, so it does not follow that the experience of a manifestation of an appetite can be sinful.

If two things are truly indistinguishable, then they are also indistinguishable as to effect. If the effect of one thing is sinful, then necessarily, the effect of the other thing would be sinful as well.

1. The teenager’s appetite for tobacco is not chosen: each particular act of smoking is chosen, but the teenager does not choose not to be able to stop. It would be more accurate to say that he elects to become a smoker since electing something does not involve intention.

Perhaps tobacco was the wrong analogy, since I do not mean to invoke the specter of addiction. What I mean is that appetites for one thing or another can be developed through training. A child can learn to first tolerate and then to enjoy eating vegetables. Lock the same child in a closet and tell him he may not come out of it until he has consumed six pounds of chocolate, and he can be trained to hate the confection, irrespective of how much he may have liked it at the outset. Therefore appetites are not immutable and can be encouraged by the culpable decisions one makes every day.

1. Suppose a straight guy came up to you and asked how he could experience same sex attraction. Would you be able to give him a sure-fire recipe that would enable him to choose to have these experiences? I know of no such recipe, and I don’t think anyone else knows one either. But if you’ve got one…

I fail to see what the point is in this illustration. Why should the knowledge of how to cure a disorder imply infallible knowledge of how to contract it? I don’t need to know how a man in the throes of psychotic dementia came to that sorry state to know he may benefit from psychotropic medication. Similarly, I need not be aware of all the errant choices that a man might make before he becomes sexually attracted to members of his own gender in order to point the way out of his problem.

1. By saying a gay person chooses to be gay by not getting “treatment,” you are drawing a moral conclusion from the assertions of NARTH and the implicit assumption that the truth of these assertions is obvious. However, if a gay person does not believe in NARTH (there is honestly no reason why he should), then this person’s choice not to pursue “treatment” does not reflect poorly on his will. As a philosopher once said, “What cannot be otherwise, we accept.”

Your assumption is that same-sex attraction is an immutable feature of a person. We know from the testimony of many people that this is not true. You can choose whatever rationalization you prefer to justify obstinacy, but a “gay person’s” decision not to educate himself on the procedures of NARTH and thereby forms an errant belief of the efficacy of their practices is engaging in intellectual sloth.

1. What you say in the quotation that follows makes it even more difficult to believe that the experience of same sex attraction could be addictive:

Other Eric;6008368:

The experience of same-sex attractions is nothing so benign as to be merely disconcerting. It is a direct affront to God’s creation of an individual as either male or female and, as such, calls into question the individual’s conception of what it means to be human.

You haven’t shown us why it would be difficult to stop choosing to experience same sex attractions if the experience of these attractions is not addictive.

But I don’t mean to say that the attractions are addictive. I mean merely to say that they can become a habit but that, in all cases, this habit can be corrected.

 

[Other_Eric]

I cannot deny nor confirm any unorthodox Jesuits. If they are unorthodox, then they are unorthodox. If they are orthodox, then they are orthodox. I do understand your criticism of the Jesuits (not many university’s make the Cardinal Newman list), but please do not forget the possibility that there are orthodox Jesuits is very real; look at Fr. Pacwa from EWTN. I consider him to be a very orthodox Jesuit.

Now, there are cases in which the effects of original sin are unavoidable. Let’s say I am married to the most wonderful girl. A very attractive woman other than my wife comes along and I feel attracted to her. In this situation, I am commanded to avoid the temptation of lustful thoughts and other sexual sin. As long as the experience is just one of being attracted to the other woman, I am not sinning. If other temptations win, I would be sinning like with lustful thoughts.

The homosexual who experiences an attraction and does not act upon their temptations is in my opinion like the married man who is attracted to another woman. Now, homosexual attraction is something that has to be remedied for there are instances of “going straight” (I do not know the correct terminology). Homosexuals must strive for this, but in the meantime they are not sinning just by being attracted to the same sex. The period of correcting their homosexuality may take time and the act of correcting their sinful outlook must be corrected.

In summary, a homosexual must remain celibate in all instances. He/she must bear this cross and avoid the temptations they undergo. Good Christians must be accepting of these celibate homosexuals and not caste them away for a Christian’s duty is also to be another person’s keeper. They are God’s children like every one of us, but Christians must remember that compassion without justice is stupid.

The celibate homosexual who battles his/her temptations while making an effort to correct their homosexuality is not going to hell. That is Catholic teaching.

Of course, please correct me if I am wrong.

We must at all costs avoid drawing equivalence between same-sex attractions, which are a perversion of the sexuality and opposite-sex attractions, which are a gift from God pointing us to His communal and life-giving nature. To merely recognize attractive elements in a member of the opposite sex is an expression of a healthy sexuality attuned to the communal, life-giving vocation of man. To do the same for a member of the same sex, is a gross perversion of this impulse and sinful even before it descends into the realm of the overtly lustful.

The man or woman with same-sex attractions is most definitely not called to celibacy, since that is a state of life which requires the sacrifice of the goods to be had in a family. Since the person with same-sex attractions possesses no licit desire for a family, only hedonistic indulgence, there is no sacrifice to be made and thus no valid call to celibacy.

The person with same-sex attractions is called to chastity, which is defined as ”the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.” (1) This necessarily means the development of an unreserved “heterosexual” orientation. You cannot integrate a homosexual orientation within a person any more than you can incorporate blasphemy into the Mass.

As mentioned above, merely avoiding sexual activity while persisting in a state of same-sex attractions is an imperfect result and imperils the eternal destiny of whoever should become content in such a state.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 2337. Available online at:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

 

[whatevergirl]

*Have you ever personally known a gay person, Eric? *

 

[Other_Eric]

*Have you ever personally known a gay person, Eric? *

That is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[fish90]

We must at all costs avoid drawing equivalence between same-sex attractions, which are a perversion of the sexuality and opposite-sex attractions, which are a gift from God pointing us to His communal and life-giving nature. To merely recognize attractive elements in a member of the opposite sex is an expression of a healthy sexuality attuned to the communal, life-giving vocation of man. To do the same for a member of the same sex, is a gross perversion of this impulse and sinful even before it descends into the realm of the overtly lustful.

The man or woman with same-sex attractions is most definitely not called to celibacy, since that is a state of life which requires the sacrifice of the goods to be had in a family. Since the person with same-sex attractions possesses no licit desire for a family, only hedonistic indulgence, there is no sacrifice to be made and thus no valid call to celibacy.

The person with same-sex attractions is called to chastity, which is defined as ”the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.” (1) This necessarily means the development of an unreserved “heterosexual” orientation. You cannot integrate a homosexual orientation within a person any more than you can incorporate blasphemy into the Mass.

As mentioned above, merely avoiding sexual activity while persisting in a state of same-sex attractions is an imperfect result and imperils the eternal destiny of whoever should become content in such a state.

(1) Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1993. ¶ 2337. Available online at:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

Do you find the period of when a homosexual person searches for heterosexuality and strives hard but still experiences attraction to be sinful? My question comes from that many homosexuals try to become heterosexual but struggle greatly and take years or maybe a lifetime to correct their ways.

 

[whatevergirl]

That is irrelevant to the discussion.

*Not really. I ask, because you are making these assumptions about gay people, as a whole…as though they are all aware of their sinful natures, and are just ‘hedonistic,’ as you put it. I have a few gay friends, who have been in long term relationships…and they don’t view their relationships as ‘wrong.’ That is part of the problem. But, they view their relationships as loving. Not all people who are gay, are aware that their behavior is sinful. *

 

[dixieagle]

In the first place, the editorial comments of a Jesuit should be suspect to anyone with a modicum of orthodoxy. “Inner freedom” and “Christian perfection” necessarily require a sexual orientation directed towards the opposite sex. “Disinterested friendship” is best read in the context of the Church’s Tradition of warning against particular friendship and would therefore imply a friendship lacking in a certain intimacy, such as the professional environment found in a psychologist’s office. Sacramental grace is best sought only after appreciable progress in therapy has been made (and here note that the Church directs the help of disinterested friendship in advance of the reception of sacramental grace), lest the individual commit sacrilege against God’s sacraments and fall deeper into error.

It was not Fr. Martin I was quoting, but the Catechism itself. vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

"Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. **"

The Church calls homosexual persons to chastity, and believes them capable of it. It also recognizes that this inclination is a difficult cross to bear. Nowhere does it suggest that homosexuals, simply by reason of their inclination, are condemned to hell.

I think that some charity, as exhibited by the Church herself, is called for. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but they are just that, and not what the Church teaches.

 

[whatevergirl]

It was not Fr. Martin I was quoting, but the Catechism itself. vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

"Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. **"

**The Church calls homosexual persons to chastity, and believes them capable of it. It also recognizes that this inclination is a difficult cross to bear. Nowhere does it suggest that homosexuals, simply by reason of their inclination, are condemned to hell.

I think that some charity, as exhibited by the Church herself, is called for. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but they are just that, and not what the Church teaches.**

Amen!

 

[dixieagle]

*I’m wondering though if being attracted to someone of the same sex, is really more a cross to bear or struggle, than it is a sin. It could lead one to sin, and of course, if any of us were to carry lustful thoughts in our minds over another, same sex or otherwise, that is also sinful. (as Jesus speaks to His followers about those who look with women in lust, are guilty of adultery in their minds) But, if someone is struggling with SSA, and they don’t ever act it out…they continue to go to confession, I would think that God would show mercy. The reality of heaven is that none of us ‘deserve’ it, none of us can ‘earn’ it…it is only by God’s mercy and the sacrifice that Christ made for us all, that any of us will arrive there. I think the Cardinal spoke in a too broad a fashion, the premise is good, but he doesn’t know who will go to heaven, because he doesn’t know the mind of all men and women, he doesn’t know if people are ignorant of moral law, and he doesn’t know how God will deal with all of us. I think it’s safe to ‘‘assume’’ that if ANY OF US are in sexual sin, and don’t repent, that odds could be good we might not see heaven. But, I don’t think any mere mortal can with absolute certainty say…this one or that one ‘‘will never enter the reign of God.’’ *

You are, of course, absolutely right, and in accord with the Church view, WG.

Perhaps there is a reason the Cardinal is “Emeritus”.

 

[Other_Eric]

It was not Fr. Martin I was quoting, but the Catechism itself. vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

"Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. **"

The Church calls homosexual persons to chastity, and believes them capable of it. It also recognizes that this inclination is a difficult cross to bear. Nowhere does it suggest that homosexuals, simply by reason of their inclination, are condemned to hell.

I think that some charity, as exhibited by the Church herself, is called for. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but they are just that, and not what the Church teaches.

It is intriguing at times how people will quote the Catechism, imagining their point to be obvious, and at the same time ignore everything that their quoted text actually says. To wit, when the Catechism says:

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

They ignore my reading of it:

In the first place, the editorial comments of a Jesuit should be suspect to anyone with a modicum of orthodoxy. “Inner freedom” and “Christian perfection” necessarily require a sexual orientation directed towards the opposite sex. “Disinterested friendship” is best read in the context of the Church’s Tradition of warning against particular friendship and would therefore imply a friendship lacking in a certain intimacy, such as the professional environment found in a psychologist’s office. Sacramental grace is best sought only after appreciable progress in therapy has been made (and here note that the Church directs the help of disinterested friendship in advance of the reception of sacramental grace), lest the individual commit sacrilege against God’s sacraments and fall deeper into error.

Emphasis added. They happily cut and paste the teaching that “Homosexual persons are called to chastity,” but forget that “Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being,” and all that this implies. I would therefore direct you *back *to the Catechism where a little comprehension might alleviate your lazy cut-and-paste style of argumentation.

 

[whatevergirl]

We as humans, are not in a position to condemn ANYONE to hell…we can discern, and make necessary judgements in order to help someone better their lives…we can point people to Scripture, and teach them objective Truth, but* judgement to condemn **someone is only God’s job. *

 

[redrosetea]

We as humans, are not in a position to condemn ANYONE to hell…we can discern, and make necessary judgements in order to help someone better their lives…we can point people to Scripture, and teach them objective Truth, but* judgement to condemn ***someone is only God’s job.

You are exactly right…we judge actions not people

 

[Other_Eric]

We as humans, are not in a position to condemn ANYONE to hell…we can discern, and make necessary judgements in order to help someone better their lives…we can point people to Scripture, and teach them objective Truth, but* judgement to condemn ***someone is only God’s job.

Yet, we are talking abstactions here. We definitely are permitted to recognize the eternal damnation of a hypothetical individual who obstinately persists in a sinful condition. This is different than calling out any one specific person and believing them to be damned since, in that case, you are quite correct that we lack all the knowledge of that person’s heart and relative culpability.Such judgment is reserved to God alone, Who is in possession of that information.

Keep in mind that we are only making the observation that sin puts man in danger of Hell. If you would like to throw out the teaching of Hell that the Church has preserved through the centuries and substitute an eschatological ignorance in direct opposition to much of what Christ Himself said, you would then have to acknowledge how far outside the thinking of Holy Mother Church you have strayed. I beg of you to repent and come back.

 

[whatevergirl]

I think we’re in agreement then, Eric. Oh, and I am a devout Catholic. I make mistakes, and am a sinner like we all are, but I haven’t strayed. Thanks for your concern, though.