Gay lobby fighting reparative therapy at the expense of our youth

[Catolico65]

Oops! My bad. I thought I included a link before I posted that. It’s from Lumen Gentium.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Gonna edit it back into my post.

There is nothing about sexuality in this document.

 

[SMGS127]

There is nothing about sexuality in this document.

He referenced it for the requirement that Catholics must submit their intellect and will to papal statements, even those not made ex cathedra.

 

[StudentMI]

There is nothing about sexuality in this document.

I didn’t say there would be. It’s where the long quote about submission to the teaching of the Pope in post 175 came from that you called uncharitable.

 

[Catolico65]

Correct, he is not. He is, however, saying that the Catholic Church has no position on the origins of homosexuality, countering your claim that the origins of homosexuality are known from the Catechism and Scripture. It also counters your claim that a Catholic must believe that homosexuality is not biological. This is a topic we are free to differ on.

His study reeks of bias because he is presenting what is effectively an opinion piece as a scientific analysis. As a scientific analysis, it is intensely biased to the point of being unreliable. But he also makes false conclusions and overly broad conclusions in error as well. I am not providing you a scientific analysis, but I am giving you a theological analysis consistent with doctrine that I recognize could be fallible. I could possibly be wrong in the future, but contrary to your claims, we do not have enough scientific evidence to know one way or the other whether homosexuality is biologically innate or not.

The problem with this debate, however, is you do not recognize that your opinion may, in fact, be fallible and are attempting to force everyone else to believe what you believe on an issue that we are under no obedience to believe in any manner on.

The Catechism clearly states that homosexuality is psychological in genesis, this is not up for debate.

What is also clear from data of the studies of identical twins and homosexuality is that it can’t be genetic. Furthermore, all real scholarship is pointing out to environmental factors.

Finally, as I’ve stated before it is not logical that homosexual is innate given Scripture and the nature of sin. For example, a severely retarded person cannot sin because they were made that way by Gad. In the same vein a homosexual person could not have been created that way by God or otherwise their homosexual actions would not be a sin anymore than a severely mentally retarded persons actions would be.

Nonetheless, the CC has shown a certain deference to science because of the overwhelming “supposed” biological sources that have ended up being dead ends so we know this will be resolved sooner rather that later in official Church teachings. Paz.

 

[Catolico65]

I didn’t say there would be. It’s where the long quote about submission to the teaching of the Pope in post 175 came from that you called uncharitable.

Please understand neither of the Pope’s said homosexuality is innate. Benedict merely states they will defer to science until it becomes more clear. Francis says we should not have any problem with people who suffer from SSA, which I don’t. I’m here to help them and to let them know that God did not create them to have SSA so it can be removed.

 

[StudentMI]

The Catechism clearly states that homosexuality is psychological in genesis, this is not up for debate.

Dude, the Pope said the opposite of what you said and numerous times people have pointed out to you that psychological can include physiological factors.

Finally, as I’ve stated before it is not logical that homosexual is innate given Scripture and the nature of sin. For example, a severely retarded person cannot sin because they were made that way by Gad. In the same vein a homosexual person could not have been created that way by God or otherwise their homosexual actions would not be a sin anymore than a severely mentally retarded persons actions would be.

You misunderstand the full impact of the fall of man.

What I really find troubling is your belief that homosexual desires in adults that don’t come about through abuse or indoctrination are the result of arrogance and rejection of God. That’s nearly a direct quote from you. This colors all your posts on the matter. It is direct opposition to professional theologians and Church doctrine on the matter, including the Pope Himself. That’s not up for debate. You are saying something is a sin when the Church had stated it is not. This should trouble a Catholic.

 

[Catolico65]

Dude, the Pope said the opposite of what you said and numerous times people have pointed out to you that psychological can include physiological factors.

You misunderstand the full impact of the fall of man.

What I really find troubling is your belief that homosexual desires in adults that don’t come about through abuse or indoctrination are the result of arrogance and rejection of God. That’s nearly a direct quote from you. This colors all your posts on the matter. It is direct opposition to professional theologians and Church doctrine on the matter, including the Pope Himself. That’s not up for debate. You are saying something is a sin when the Church had stated it is not. This should trouble a Catholic.

You are confused regarding this topic. With all due respect I can read plain English.** The Pope did not say homosexuality is innate, repeat it is not innate. **The Pope is merely deferring to science, which is the norm.

The reality is there will be no biological origin of homosexuality found because all this research has come to a dead end. Even the gay lobby is starting to realize this.

As far as to the “why” people have SSA, apart from indoctrination or sexual abuses, the Bible is clear. This has nothing to do with the fact that SSA temptations are not sinful, nothing. Still, while SSA temptations are not a sin, they certainly are not normal and in fact are disordered according to the Catechism and the Bible.

Finally, you have a poor understanding of Catechism and Scripture and it is evident in your constant manipulation of said to fit your argument and objective, which is clear. I would caution anyone from promoting SSA and innate and normal due to Jesus stern warning of misleading children. It is one thing to struggle with sins of a personal nature and it is another thing altogether to enable or promote sin causing others to suffer and sin.

 

[StudentMI]

You are confused regarding this topic. With all due respect I can read plain English.** The Pope did not say homosexuality is innate, repeat it is not innate. **The Pope is merely deferring to science, which is the norm.

The reality is there will be no biological origin of homosexuality found because all this research has come to a dead end. Even the gay lobby is starting to realize this.

As far as to the “why” people have SSA, apart from indoctrination or sexual abuses, the Bible is clear. This has nothing to do with the fact that SSA temptations are not sinful, nothing. Still, while SSA temptations are not a sin, they certainly are not normal and in fact are disordered according to the Catechism and the Bible.

Finally, you have a poor understanding of Catechism and Scripture and it is evident in your constant manipulation of said to fit your argument and objective, which is clear. I would caution anyone from promoting SSA and innate and normal due to Jesus stern warning of misleading children. It is one thing to struggle with sins of a personal nature and it is another thing altogether to enable or promote sin causing others to suffer and sin.

I didn’t say the Pope said it is innate. I am quoting it to show you that your argument it is psychological (meaning not physiological at all) is not supported by Pope Benedict. I defer to Pope Benedict.

Second, your definitive rejection of further research is troubling to say the least and not very scientific.

You have clearly stated that homosexuality apart from abuse and ‘indoctrination’ is due to arrogance and rejection of God. That is not supported by the Catholic Church. the Church says the exact opposite. The Church does not agree with your reading of Romans. You are making homosexuality the result of sin and therefore sinful itself. The Church says different, Courage says different. Need I go on? I think you misunderstand the term ‘disordered.’ Courage addresses it in relation to same sex attraction in their FAQ. You should read it.

It doesn’t matter what you think Romans says. We are not Protestants who rely on sola scriptura. We defer to the Church and the Church rules on faith and morality. You are making two moral judgements (the origin of homosexuality and the belief it is innate) which the Catholic Church does not support. I have no agenda other than this issue.

Can you please find a Church document that clearly supports your interpretation of Romans? And please don’t just cite the Catechism. We’ve been over this.

 

[Catolico65]

I didn’t say the Pope said it is innate. I am quoting it to show you that your argument it is psychological (meaning not physiological at all) is not supported by Pope Benedict. I defer to Pope Benedict.

Pope Benedict has not said that homosexuality is innate, no matter how many times you repeat it.

It is also clear that you have personal interests that are causing you to interpret wrongly the Pope’s comments, Scripture and Catechism.

My advice to you is that doing this will not help your case or anyone’s, on the contrary, because God’s definition of right and wrong is not up for debate. Therefore, I recommend you quit trying to defend the indefensible and submit to God’s divine will. Don’t worry, He will forgive you as He continues to forgive and heal me of my serious transgressions.

 

[StudentMI]

Pope Benedict has not said that homosexuality is innate, no matter how many times you repeat it.

It is also clear that you have personal interests that are causing you to interpret wrongly the Pope’s comments, Scripture and Catechism.

My advice to you is that doing this will not help your case or anyone’s, on the contrary, because God’s definition of right and wrong is not up for debate. Therefore, I recommend you quit trying to defend the indefensible as that is what is required to be a good disciple.

I’ve already said he didn’t say that. Could you address the rest of my post?

 

[Catolico65]

I’ve already said he didn’t say that. Could you address the rest of my post?

With all due respect your personal interests have clouded your judgment and your logic. I am not the only one who sees this, there are many posters on this site that recognize the false logic of the gay lobby, but they don’t post because of the gay lobby tries to drown out their voice by repetition and consensus which gets irritating very quickly. All I can say is you are very stubborn and I can only pray for you and hope you realize your false theories can hurt the weak of mind. Paz.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

With all due respect your personal interests have clouded your judgment and your logic…] All I can say is you are very stubborn and I can only pray for you and hope you realize your false theories can hurt the weak of mind. Paz.

This reads as very ironic, Catolico, given your own avowed personal interests as well as your manifest intransigence in the face of reasoned critique. Did you mean it to be so?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Catolico65]

Grace & Peace!

This reads as very ironic, Catolico, given your own avowed personal interests as well as your manifest intransigence in the face of reasoned critique. Did you mean it to be so?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

With all due respect Anglicans are the perfect example of what happens when the Scripture and God’s logic are discarded for man’s - it is no wonder Scripture appears foolish to you.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

With all due respect Anglicans are the perfect example of what happens when the Scripture and God’s logic are discarded for man’s - it is no wonder Scripture appears foolish to you.

Of course, Catolico.

I’m not sure that an over-generalized and un-nuanced non sequitur on Anglicanism is actually reflecting well on you or your argument at this point. You may want to consider how such responses (and similar responses you’ve made which deflect criticism rather than engage with it) shape how people view what you’re saying.

The purpose of well-meaning critique is not to impugn the one being critiqued, but to help them refine, rethink or rephrase their argument. Many here have taken the time to offer such well-meaning critique. You have refused it. You are no fool,Catolico, but you’re acting foolishly. And that doesn’t reflect well on what you might have to say.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!