R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Not at all. He wasn’t speaking about interpretation of Scripture, but paraphrasing what is in the OT.
- Status
P
Philology
Guest
So homosexuals can’t find counsel within the Church; this is a sad notion considering I have SSA (same sex attractions), and would have liked a form of help during my stay in the Church. Why would I want to “come home” to this. I should also mention that I plan on living celibate, and chaste clear away from a homophobic god.
C
CMatt25
Guest
So here we go again. A man or woman can take lots of trouble to find out what the Church teaches to inform his or her conscience. And pray and ponder, contemplate, consider and pray some more. But still true conscience is only such if they then subject themselves fully to said teaching. The problem is that is not really then a conscience if such indoctrination of one’s mind goes against one’s good conscience. But whatever. God bless you all and peace.Agreed. You cannot take Jesus’s words in a vacuum nor can you read instructions on Jewish dietary law without putting them in the context of a nomadic people living in the wilderness.
I also see that the old “primacy of conscience” canard is once again being offered as a reason Catholics can ignore any church teaching that interferes with their politics. Accordingly it is probably time that we once again post the context of “primacy of conscience”
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
[1791](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1791.htm’)
This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
[1792](javascript
[1793](javascript
[1794](javascript
The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No. I haven’t manipulated the term straw man to use as an intellectually dishonest weapon. I think that is a low blow of yours. You did bring in extraneous concepts to the discussion, and used irrelevant concepts of dietary discipline (vs. sexual morality) as an overarching and disconnected reason to assert that, in addition, Jesus’ explicit views about sexual morality should be treated as if they were no more relevant than the laws of dietary discipline. Straw Man means not staying within logical premises, but introducing different and inappropriately broader examples to deny the particular narrow differentiations being discussed.
Again, I’m disappointed.
R
rlg94086
Guest
What did StTommyMore post? Where did he say that the Church condemned Scripture, as you charged?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Philology, I don’t know how much a lack of some form of help or of understanding, compassionate counsel ended your stay in the Church. But I am sorry if this played a role in ending your stay. I see you are atheist. But as I believe in a Creator, I believe you are a child of my Creator as well. And I wish you peace.
T
TEPO
Guest
It’s obvious that most of the posters here are expert debaters who enjoy nothing more than the sport of debate… Thats why nothing will ever be accomplished -because it’s become a game of win or lose.
This thread filled with basically flawed logic turned around and posted as beautiful masterpeices…
Until new posters chime in here, who show passion for charity in truth, I’m gone.
This thread filled with basically flawed logic turned around and posted as beautiful masterpeices…
Until new posters chime in here, who show passion for charity in truth, I’m gone.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Yep.Beat you to it!
…not that it will make much difference to the heterodox among us.
C
CMatt25
Guest
My point exactly. Because you or anyone else believes this or that is irrelevant, doesn’t make it so. But go ahead I guess and carry on if you would like with your self described more education. And your all knowing beliefs if you prescribe to know everything with absolute certainty. But just remember that is what they are. Beliefs. Along the way though God bless all of you along your walks of faith and peace.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Ok…see ya!It’s obvious that most of the posters here are expert debaters who enjoy nothing more than the sport of debate… Thats why nothing will ever be accomplished -because it’s become a game of win or lose.
This thread filled with basically flawed logic turned around and posted as beautiful masterpeices…
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
larkin (and some others), the Church is not trying to forbid homosexual behavior in the civil arena. She is not that stupid to think that she would ever be able to succeed in that.
This may sound like parsing words (or concepts), but it is not meant that way: While she doesn’t want to make the effort to try to pass unpassable legislation about private sexual behavior, she also does not want to participate in institutionalizing certain forms of sexual behavior, such as homosexual unions/gay “marriage.” This is an important difference, in my view. I wish people in the wider world could understand that this does not equate with “hate.” I have some very dear friends who are active homosexuals. One is a close family friend. I may disapprove of his behavior but I must love him as Jesus commands. (There’s no effort; he’s a sweet person.) I am not his priest or minister. It’s not my job to pass judgment on his behavior before I accept him into my circle of loved ones. I understand his background. He had no relationship with his father (who I think died early), and almost no other relationships with other males, either – during his formative years. That combined with certain innate tendencies which we might describe as “effeminate” (although many straight men are effeminate, and many are pleasantly gentle but not effeminate, raised also as they were, or surrounded, by females) resulted in his conscious or unconscious drift toward a homosexual orientation.
I support the Church’s stand on resisting the formal affirmation of homosexual unions because such institutionalized partnerships erode the unique value of two different genders in the formation of children, whose rights as innocent minors, supplant the “rights” (desires) of adults to indulge their own pleasures, to create private, new definitions of institutions, and to insist on societal approval of experimental arrangements. That uniqueness is not interchangeable with gender roles or “feminine” and “masculine” appearances. Simultaneously, though, I vehemently oppose any form of persecution, civil or religious, against gays, whether or not they have chosen state-legtimized partnerships in their locality. Persecution of individuals, regardless of the basis of such persecution, is distinctly anti-Gospel, anti-Christian.
This may sound like parsing words (or concepts), but it is not meant that way: While she doesn’t want to make the effort to try to pass unpassable legislation about private sexual behavior, she also does not want to participate in institutionalizing certain forms of sexual behavior, such as homosexual unions/gay “marriage.” This is an important difference, in my view. I wish people in the wider world could understand that this does not equate with “hate.” I have some very dear friends who are active homosexuals. One is a close family friend. I may disapprove of his behavior but I must love him as Jesus commands. (There’s no effort; he’s a sweet person.) I am not his priest or minister. It’s not my job to pass judgment on his behavior before I accept him into my circle of loved ones. I understand his background. He had no relationship with his father (who I think died early), and almost no other relationships with other males, either – during his formative years. That combined with certain innate tendencies which we might describe as “effeminate” (although many straight men are effeminate, and many are pleasantly gentle but not effeminate, raised also as they were, or surrounded, by females) resulted in his conscious or unconscious drift toward a homosexual orientation.
I support the Church’s stand on resisting the formal affirmation of homosexual unions because such institutionalized partnerships erode the unique value of two different genders in the formation of children, whose rights as innocent minors, supplant the “rights” (desires) of adults to indulge their own pleasures, to create private, new definitions of institutions, and to insist on societal approval of experimental arrangements. That uniqueness is not interchangeable with gender roles or “feminine” and “masculine” appearances. Simultaneously, though, I vehemently oppose any form of persecution, civil or religious, against gays, whether or not they have chosen state-legtimized partnerships in their locality. Persecution of individuals, regardless of the basis of such persecution, is distinctly anti-Gospel, anti-Christian.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Most orthodox (conservative is a political term) Catholics point out, correctly, that the actions are a choice, even if the condition is not. This is true regardless of the version. That’s why I always compare homosexuality to compulsive masturbators. The disordered desire to masturbate is not a choice, but the act is. There are those who don’t have deep-seated, disordered desires and they easily overcome them. For those with deep-seated desires, they generally need help in their struggle with temptation.
Just curious, but was the change made because the first one was sloppy translation?
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Gee, why are you so acerbic? Why turn this so personal? No: there is a system, an academic system, to biblical interpretation. It’s a text. Just as the Constitution needs interpretation by experts trained in that. I am trained in biblical interpretation; that doesn’t mean I have claimed here or elsewhere “absolute certainty” or being “all-knowing.” I am, however, also trained in logical argument, and I was addressing your approach toward logical argument (vs. your interpretation of scripture), and it is the procedures of logical argument which do carry with them certain “absolute” principles or premises. There’s nothing “self-described” about my education. Education carries with it verifiable units, degrees, etc. I certainly have never stated that I have an exclusive claim on authentic interpretation on CAF. Check out the Scripture sub-forum over in Apologetics. Gee.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Elizabeth, you’re the one who brought up personal education saying “they have not been deeply educated in that. Some of us have”.Gee, why are you so acerbic? Why turn this so personal? No: there is a system, an academic system, to biblical interpretation. It’s a text. Just as the Constitution needs interpretation by experts trained in that. I am trained in biblical interpretation; that doesn’t mean I have claimed here or elsewhere “absolute certainty” or being “all-knowing.” I am, however, also trained in logical argument, and I was addressing your approach toward logical argument (vs. your interpretation of scripture), and it is the procedures of logical argument which do carry with them certain “absolute” principles or premises. There’s nothing “self-described” about my education. Education carries with it verifiable units, degrees, etc. I certainly have never stated that I have an exclusive claim on authentic interpretation on CAF. Check out the Scripture sub-forum over in Apologetics. Gee.
There are tons of scholars of all stripes, Catholic and Protestant, who claim and have training in Biblical interpretation. And some even interpret and translate things, and interpret what is or is not relevant, differently than you and the Catholic Church. But God bless and have a great day!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
And NONE of those scholars would say what you said in your posts on the last few pages – regarding shellfish, slavery, etc. having anything to do with Jesus’ views and worldview (as a First Century Jew) on sexual morality. None of them. I’ve studied many, many biblical scholars: Jewish, Protestant, Catholic. My knowledge of Protestant scholars is rather extensive, btw, because they dominante scripture scholarship. Absolutely none of them, either, would agree with your premises.
J
jackangelo1
Guest
IF I don’t what i’m talking about, then so are three Scientists for three top Colleges , and two Scientist from the CDC, WHO FIRST DISCOVERED Hiv virus in 5 homosexuals in 1967, they covered-up telling the people about homosexuality, and my loose-mouthed forum member, the Psychiatric association board of directors has three active radical homosexuals as members. People like you HURT homosexuals, instead of finding the cause of it and fixing it! A Mental Disease, is just that, A Curable Disease. I’m not so Lucky, I suffer from four ,yes 4 Disases that have no Cure? We must Help homosexuals , NOT deny theirs anything wrong, like You do! BY THE WAY, SEEK HELP??
C
CMatt25
Guest
Larkin, you can take all of this on if you so desire. Elizabeth and I have been over this and these parental relationship ideas elsewhere.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Ok then for instance some TEC and UCC arguments which I’ve seen on homosexuality and the Bible you with certainty don’t agree with. That’s fine. God bless. Have a nice day Elizabeth. And that wasn’t meant to sound terse. Just wishing you a nice day.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I’m going to get back to larkin now on the question of suicide, because I appreciate the respectful and neutral tone he used, despite my disagreeing with him. And I believe in being honest when it comes to argument, and admitting what is authentic and what is not authentic. So I apply the same rules to myself.
You’re right – and I knew it when I posted – about the red herring I introduced when I said ‘newsflash.’ It was deliberately provocative on my part, to make a point. The reason I brought it up is that – not you, but the public in general – often blames gay suicide specifically on Catholicism because Catholic sexual morality is “absolute” vs. some other religious viewpoints, such as Reform Judaism, such as mainstream Protestantism (vs. more fundamentalist Protestant sects). I also brought it up because naturally gay suicide is prominent in the news and was also introduced on the thread as somehow possibly related to Catholic Church approval/disapproval of homosexuality and formalized homosexual unions. (i.e., “disapproval” is supposedly a catalyst for suicide).
Suicide has many and varied triggers, sometimes proximate, sometimes underlying – and often, both. (An incident close in time being the final trigger in a series of triggers, or particularlizing and concretizing the general suffering experienced or perceived by the victim) Suicide also has irrational elements to it and unknown causes. Some suicide is the result of untreated, or treated but unreachable, depression. Naturally, societal approval or disapproval can be a major factor in personal unhappiness. However, lots of people thoroughly & universally rejected for various actions or beliefs or words (whatever the basis & moral legitimacy of that rejection), do not commit suicide. So one’s personal ethos about suicide, and one’s personal strength, do play into outcomes. No moral stance (personal or institutional) should be compromised because of fear of someone else’s potential suicide.
For example, let’s bring in the Rutgers student. We don’t know his motivation. (And btw, sometimes suicide victims leave false notes, or confusing/conflicting clues.) Suppose for a second that the video that was aired about his private activity was not homosexual activity but masturbation. Perhaps he would have felt equally suicidal, because of the shame in being publicly displayed. It doesn’t mean that the Church should change its stand on masturbation, to prevent suicides. It means that the videographer is a first class jerk lacking any sense of responsibility or compassion, or sensitivity toward violation of privacy and personal dignity. Nothing that the videographer did corresponds to RCC teaching. Not one thing.
Adolescence is a time of volatility regarding self-concept especially – even a time of irrationality and ‘extreme’ decision-making, and certainly impulsivity. The implications of that, for Catholic morality and for societal morality in general, is caution and support and open discussion with adolescents, about their decision-making and their angst about acceptance, and the consequences to self & others about that angst. Taking it out of religion, if a teen is “found out” to be a drunkard – or a cheat — we shouldn’t alter our standards of honesty and alcohol use just to prevent a possible suicide. We should have discussions about suicide. This is actually one of my personal causes: support groups for teens and college students about suicide; I advocate for this often and there is especially not enough of it on college campuses.
And I believe in being honest when it comes to argument, and admitting what is authentic and what is not authentic. So I apply the same rules to myself. You’re right – and I knew it when I posted
– about the red herring I introduced when I said ‘newsflash.’ It was deliberately provocative on my part, to make a point. The reason I brought it up is that – not you, but the public in general – often blames gay suicide specifically on Catholicism because Catholic sexual morality is “absolute” vs. some other religious viewpoints, such as Reform Judaism, such as mainstream Protestantism (vs. more fundamentalist Protestant sects). I also brought it up because naturally gay suicide is prominent in the news and was also introduced on the thread as somehow possibly related to Catholic Church approval/disapproval of homosexuality and formalized homosexual unions. (i.e., “disapproval” is supposedly a catalyst for suicide).Suicide has many and varied triggers, sometimes proximate, sometimes underlying – and often, both. (An incident close in time being the final trigger in a series of triggers, or particularlizing and concretizing the general suffering experienced or perceived by the victim) Suicide also has irrational elements to it and unknown causes. Some suicide is the result of untreated, or treated but unreachable, depression. Naturally, societal approval or disapproval can be a major factor in personal unhappiness. However, lots of people thoroughly & universally rejected for various actions or beliefs or words (whatever the basis & moral legitimacy of that rejection), do not commit suicide. So one’s personal ethos about suicide, and one’s personal strength, do play into outcomes. No moral stance (personal or institutional) should be compromised because of fear of someone else’s potential suicide.
For example, let’s bring in the Rutgers student. We don’t know his motivation. (And btw, sometimes suicide victims leave false notes, or confusing/conflicting clues.) Suppose for a second that the video that was aired about his private activity was not homosexual activity but masturbation. Perhaps he would have felt equally suicidal, because of the shame in being publicly displayed. It doesn’t mean that the Church should change its stand on masturbation, to prevent suicides. It means that the videographer is a first class jerk lacking any sense of responsibility or compassion, or sensitivity toward violation of privacy and personal dignity. Nothing that the videographer did corresponds to RCC teaching. Not one thing.
Adolescence is a time of volatility regarding self-concept especially – even a time of irrationality and ‘extreme’ decision-making, and certainly impulsivity. The implications of that, for Catholic morality and for societal morality in general, is caution and support and open discussion with adolescents, about their decision-making and their angst about acceptance, and the consequences to self & others about that angst. Taking it out of religion, if a teen is “found out” to be a drunkard – or a cheat — we shouldn’t alter our standards of honesty and alcohol use just to prevent a possible suicide. We should have discussions about suicide. This is actually one of my personal causes: support groups for teens and college students about suicide; I advocate for this often and there is especially not enough of it on college campuses.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
There is bad argumentation out there in every field, including some of it in the scriptural field, some of it in the Constitutional field, etc. When assessing whether an argument has validity, any true scholar looks to the premises. So taking it out of scripture for a moment, and going to a different text, such as Shakespeare, if a scholar is coming up with a new theory, I do not dismiss it out of hand because it’s not a classical interpretation of The Bard. What I do is look to see how he or she is applying textual (contextual) criticism. If he or she is using 20th/21st century understandings of Elizabethan morality & philosophy, and applying those inappropriately, I (or anyone else) can legitimately criticize the conclusions of that scholar. Not all that is published is genuine scholarship.
- Status