Gay lobby fighting reparative therapy at the expense of our youth

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Your statement is just more false logic. Repetition of a claim does not make it valid, sorry.

I think we should be careful of using doubt as a tool of argument, given the author of said.

If it’s false logic, explain how it is false.

 

[Cavaradossi]

With all due respect Augustine wrote there was sexual desire before the fall. The Bible also alludes to this as well.

St. Augustine taught the possibility of sexual intercourse before the fall, not sexual desire.

 

[Catolico65]

St. Augustine taught the possibility of sexual intercourse before the fall, not sexual desire.

With all due respect I read the translation myself so no personal interpretations needed.

 

[Catolico65]

If it’s false logic, explain how it is false.

With all due respect I have responded to you in detail and instead of acknowledging you errors you propose something else so I don’t see the point. It is apparent you feel that homosexuality is an innate condition and possibly want the CC to accept that as well like other churches. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Cavaradossi]

With all due respect I read the translation myself so no personal interpretations needed.

You’ve provided nothing to justify your reading of Augustine. On the other hand, there are plenty of scholars who understand St. Augustine as having thought that sexual appetite is not natural to man.

 

[Catolico65]

You’ve provided nothing to justify your reading of Augustine. On the other hand, there are plenty of scholars who understand St. Augustine as having thought that sexual appetite is not natural to man.

St. Augustine statements are clear in the document I referenced. Also, I think it is not helpful that you would pretend to refute the document without reading what St. Augustine actually says.

 

[Cavaradossi]

St. Augustine statements are clear in the document I referenced. Also, I think it is not helpful that you would pretend to refute the document without reading what St. Augustine actually says.

I have not attempted to “refute” anything of St. Augustine’s writings. Rather, I have disputed your reading of St. Augustine, as I have encountered plenty of scholars whose opinion is that St. Augustine distinguished between the sexual appetite, which he saw as a product of the fall, and sexual intercourse, which only in his later writings did he admit was possibly not a consequence of the fall. I am asking you to provide some passage from St. Augustine in support of your belief that he did not regard the sexual appetite as a product of the fall.

 

[Catolico65]

I have not attempted to “refute” anything of St. Augustine’s writings. Rather, I have disputed your reading of St. Augustine, as I have encountered plenty of scholars whose opinion is that St. Augustine distinguished between the sexual appetite, which he saw as a product of the fall, and sexual intercourse, which only in his later writings did he admit was possibly not a consequence of the fall. I am asking you to provide some passage from St. Augustine in support of your belief that he did not regard the sexual appetite as a product of the fall.

I already posted the source, Contra Julianum. What I read was clear, St. Augustine says there was desire before the fall. If you say he denies this later on please provide a source of direct negation of his statements in Contra Julianum.

 

[StudentMI]

I already posted the source, Contra Julianum. What I read was clear, St. Augustine says there was desire before the fall. If you say he denies this later on please provide a source of direct negation of his statements in Contra Julianum.

That’s not how it works. You have to provide a source for your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Direct quotes from Church Fathers were provided earlier. You have to quote. You can’t just tell people “it says this.” That is just your reading, and your reading of various things (Romans, the Catechism) disagrees with Church teaching on the issue. So please provide direct documentation of your claims.

 

[Catolico65]

That’s not how it works. You have to provide a source for your claim. The burden of proof is on you. Direct quotes from Church Fathers were provided earlier. You have to quote. You can’t just tell people “it says this.” That is just your reading, and your reading of various things (Romans, the Catechism) disagrees with Church teaching on the issue. So please provide direct documentation of your claims.

You make a very good point.

I quote the Catechism and the Bible **directly **and you disagree with it, so I see no point in providing direct quotes. Paz

 

[StudentMI]

You make a very good point.

I quote the Catechism and the Bible **directly **and you disagree with it, so I see no point in providing direct quotes. Paz

And you disagree with the positions of Popes (Benedict and Francis directly), including Pope Benedict’s comments on what the Catechism does and does not say about the origin of homosexual desires, Pope Francis’ comment that the inclination is not the problem. You never address CDF documents regarding homosexuality. You never address Courage, currently the only apostolate approved for those with same sex attraction. You just provide your opinion of what Romans says. The Church has the authority to interpret Scripture definitively and to make moral and faith dogma. The Church says the direct opposite of what you say. As a Catholic who do you think I’m going to believe?

 

[Catolico65]

And you disagree with the positions of Popes (Benedict and Francis directly), including Pope Benedict’s comments on what the Catechism does and does not say about the origin of homosexual desires, Pope Francis’ comment that the inclination is not the problem. You never address CDF documents regarding homosexuality. You never address Courage, currently the only apostolate approved for those with same sex attraction. You just provide your opinion of what Romans says. The Church has the authority to interpret Scripture definitively and to make moral and faith dogma. The Church says the direct opposite of what you say. As a Catholic who do you think I’m going to believe?

The Catechism says:

• Its psychological genesis remains **largely **unexplained. *

Largely but not completely unexplained. Romans 1 states:

*"While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.u

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts* for the mutual degradation of their bodies."*

As far as Pope Benedict’s and Francis comments if they aren’t spoken ex catehdra that means they aren’t doctrine.

Regarding Pope Benedicts specific comment:

How does a homosexual tendency originate? There are theories aplenty, each with its partisans. (The Catholic Church has no position on this matter. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in reference to the revised Catechism, “We have left room for all the hypotheses on the origin of homosexual tendency - whether it is innate or developed under certain circumstances.”)

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that states that homosexuality is innate, only that it is inferred that they are deferring to science, thus the comment “we have left room”.

Well know we know there is no more reason for any more “room” in the debate, science has proven homosexuality is not biological. I expect the Catechism will be changed to reflect this at some point in the near future. Paz.

 

[SMGS127]

The Catechism says:

• Its psychological genesis remains **largely ***unexplained.

Largely but not completely unexplained. Romans 1 states:

*"While claiming to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes.u

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts* for the mutual degradation of their bodies."*

As far as Pope Benedict’s and Francis comments if they aren’t spoken ex catehdra that means they aren’t doctrine.

Regarding Pope Benedicts specific comment:

How does a homosexual tendency originate? There are theories aplenty, each with its partisans. (The Catholic Church has no position on this matter. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in reference to the revised Catechism, “We have left room for all the hypotheses on the origin of homosexual tendency - whether it is innate or developed under certain circumstances.”)

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that states that homosexuality is innate, only that it is inferred that they are deferring to science, thus the comment “we have left room”.

Well know we know there is no more reason for any more “room” in the debate, science has proven homosexuality is not biological. I expect the Catechism will be changed to reflect this at some point in the near future. Paz.

A) It is not proven that homosexuality is not biological; that is a completely untrue statement.

B) While non-ex cathedra statements are not doctrine, they should still be deferred to out of obedience.

 

[Catolico65]

A) It is not proven that homosexuality is not biological; that is a completely untrue statement.

B) While non-ex cathedra statements are not doctrine, they should still be deferred to out of obedience.

You bias regarding this topic hurts your credibility.

BTW, the Popes comments say nothing definitive anyway, good grief.

 

[StudentMI]

As far as Pope Benedict’s and Francis comments if they aren’t spoken ex catehdra that means they aren’t doctrine.

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

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

 

[SMGS127]

You bias regarding this topic hurts your credibility.

BTW, the Popes comments say nothing definitive anyway, good grief.

I have no bias other than my personal opinion. You also have a personal opinion. Does that mean you have no credibility due to bias? Come on now.

Also, at StudentMI. I didn’t know where that information was found, but I knew it existed about the religious submission of intellect and will.

 

[Catolico65]

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

Please explain the significance of the Pope’s comments. It is obvious they are not stating that homosexuality is innate.

 

[StudentMI]

I have no bias other than my personal opinion. You also have a personal opinion. Does that mean you have no credibility due to bias? Come on now.

Also, at StudentMI. I didn’t know where that information was found, but I knew it existed about the religious submission of intellect and will.

Please explain the significance of the Pope’s comments. It is obvious they are not stating that homosexuality is innate.

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.

 

[Catolico65]

I have no bias other than my personal opinion. You also have a personal opinion. Does that mean you have no credibility due to bias? Come on now.

Also, at StudentMI. I didn’t know where that information was found, but I knew it existed about the religious submission of intellect and will.

If that is so why did you say Whiteheads study reeks of bias?

Regarding th Pope’s comments, there is nothing in them that states that homosexuality is innate, only deference to science. Since science has all but proven homosexuality is njot biological at some point we can expect the CC to reflect that in it’s teachings.

 

[SMGS127]

Please explain the significance of the Pope’s comments. It is obvious they are not stating that homosexuality is innate.

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.

If that is so why did you say Whiteheads study reeks of bias?

Regarding th Pope’s comments, there is nothing in them that states that homosexuality is innate, only deference to science. Since science has all but proven homosexuality is njot biological at some point we can expect the CC to reflect that in it’s teachings.

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. Not only that, but he states them as fact.

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 (though I view this as unlikely), 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.