The athlete of whom we speak did not demonstrate strength in the sense or definition of the word you bolded.
You misunderstand the term, Sacred Tradition, capital T. Very different from the common term, “traditional.”
I took the trouble to gather together some authoritative answers from a CAF member who is seminary-trained, Brother JR. Several people have addressed questions to him in the recent & far past about infallibility, the Magisterium, and the Catechism. Here are the salient responses addressing your comment.
IOW, infallibility pertains to moral truths, which therefore includes any moral truths contained in the Catechism, and thus the entire moral teachings about human sexuality (ordered and disordered). Specific statements called “infallible [papal] statements” are those uttered by Popes, rarely, Ex Cathedra. All Ex Cathedra statements are infallible, but not all infallible truths must be proclaimed Ex Cathedra.
This. Right. Here.
I enjoy reading Brother JR’s posts (and your posts as well). CAF members are indeed lucky to have learned posters like the both of you.
Actually my point is that neither that guy nor the guy on this forum showed strength in what they admitted.
It is true that God never promised a perfect life without pain and suffering, some people are upset that their life can more accurately be called “Purgatory on Earth” except that the people in Purgatory at least have the consolation they will be in Heaven eventually whereas thosw on Earth have no such assurances.This. Right. Here.
My young son is on the autism spectrum. He is what most would call “high functioning” but will probably always face the hardship of making friends let alone getting married and having a family. However, I don’t shake my fist at God and say that he doesn’t have a place within the Church. Rather, I stand in awe because I feel he will have an easier time entering the kingdom of Heaven because of the way he carries his cross. You see, God never promised us a perfect life and one without pain and suffering. However, certain people really want the Church to bend for them and kick and scream when it doesn’t happen. Infertile couples also bear a painful cross. But rarely do I see as many threads questioning the teachings of the Church as I do on homosexual issues. I think much more prayer and reflection is needed by the homosexual community and their advocates before trying to change what can’t be changed with the Church.
In reading back your Posts 93 and 101, you were therefore being sarcastic? Except your subsequent posts suggest differently, with Post 124 gratuitously offering the several dictionary definitions of strength.
What i meant about its not all black and white was for the person dealing with it, i agree the churches teaching is clearly black and white. I struggle with ssa, and yes it may well be my cross to bare, i also have never had a relationship with a person of the same sex, but because i have thought about it and been impure i therefore have committed a mortal sin. Yes we are ALL sinners, but in my own personnal opinion, baring in mind i don’t agree with sex before marriage, contraception, or abortion, why the church teaches us that being impure is as big a sin as sleeping with someone outside of marriage, murder of another born or unborn confuses me. I understand our bodies belong to christ and therefore should be kept as pure as we can, but “the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak” never truer words were spoken! (probably not the actual words, but i’m trying)Oh really? Do share with us what is not black and white about the Church’s moral doctrine on sexuality, which includes (but is not limited to) homosexual behavior.
The Franciscan Brother trained in theology beyond what the typical lay person receives has responded to the question of binding moral law, on many threads. Moral law in the Church does not change. Sometimes the explanation of that moral law changes, but not the Truth of it, nor the permanence of it. The Church’s integrated doctrine on human sexuality is based on a combination of revelation (Scriptural), Sacred Tradition, and natural law. There’s no “change” within the calculus of that.
The OP asked a question. The question was centered on the teaching. **(See thread title) ** The matter of individual conformity to the teaching – difficulty with that, struggle with that – is what is not a black-and-white issue, for (I presume) any of us, including for many saints.
Struggle and difficulty never modify or “change” moral doctrine. Not in the Roman Church, anyway. But there are many non-Catholic faith traditions whose doctrine changes depending on popular opinion, “scientific research,” and other variables. Truth, by definition, does not vary. That’s what’s different about Catholicism vs. many other religions. The premises of what can and cannot change are fundamentally different from what operates in those religions and also from what occurs in secular society.
Regarding your other point, I’m glad that you correctly understand that Jesus will not leave any of us in distress, as long as we do our best to follow His commandments honestly and sincerely.
My sarcasm it much better spoken.
Think about what, having a relationship or engaging in sex? The latter is sinful whereas the former is.
I’m not sure, don’t think they belittle it, but kinda put people in a box sorta speak…
It doesn’t matter how many “Catholics” around the world support so-called “gay marriage”. The Church is not a secular institution nor a political party; it’s not looking to bend the rules to be popular and see who can get the most members or approval. That is a major secular fallacy on your part.
(1) That’s because most people are not thoroughly educated on the issue. Here in the USA, for example, gay marriage supporters talk about the “right” to marry.
Most credible discoveries support the Church’s position. It’s how some gay rights activists twist the research, adopt red herring fallacies and/or attack the researcher.
It is the “gays” that place people in a box.
Sin never helps a person flourish.
I never said sin helps a person flourish. The issue is the Church’s understanding of homosexual acts as being sinful, in the first place.
People throw out research from both sides. I have not looked very hard into it. The only times I’ve come across it have been from Catholic resources, which say what you’re saying, and a few textbooks this year (e.g., psychology) that say the opposite. Whatever the scientific research, apparently that wouldn’t change church teaching, though!
The Church understands temptation. The Church understands sin. She has inherited so much, historically, about the impulses of humanity, from earliest recorded biblical references (OT) onward. Yet such understanding has never caused the Church to define disorder as order, to define sin as good, to encourage indulgence of temptations to evil, or to dismiss such indulgence as harmless. And clearly that goes much further than sexual sins & temptations, but the ever-present temptations against charity, temptations to anger, to avarice, to pride, etc.
So I ask you again, what is the “deeper understanding” that you would like to see the Church come to that allows for homosexual acts to be performed morally? What is your vision for human sexuality that allows for homosexual sexual activity while at the same time preserving the Church’s role as an infallible teacher of moral truth?
This is definitely the big question, since it involves the Big Church and not just my opinion. I believe in a Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit. But I am not sure that that means the Church cannot be wrong or right all the time in the way people on here are saying.
You said “a homosexual person is capable of flourishing in a loving relationship with another individual”. If such a relationship includes sexual expression within that relationship there very much is sin involved, thus the persons involved do not/cannot flourish. The Church’s teaching regarding disordered sexual contact between persons of the same or opposite sex is not subject to change.
Infallible on faith and morals. Right all the time in these areas. The Church is either guided by the Holy Spirit and infallible, or it’s not and we should all go find something else to do. How does a Church guided by the Holy Spirit, in your opinion, repudiate eternal doctrine? It is not “current teaching” as you belittle it, it is Eternal Truth that does not change!