Get Ready to Rumble....Play Ball

[Edward_H]

So,

To be constructive, you would have to agree that our points of view are the same. You would have to agree that a few words as compared to more words are not in conflict. You would agree that the Church is correct and has taught both of us to understand Divine Revelation, Male and Female He created them. We agree.

I don’t know that to be so, given all the scaffolding above.

The Church has taught correctly that we are created in the image of God, male and female. The Church has taught correctly that we were meant for union with God, now and in the life to come. The Church has taught correctly about sexual complementarity, and the indissolubility of the procreative and unitive purposes of our sexual functions.

But I don’t know whether you agree with all that, minus the needless verbal scaffolding. Thus my suggestion we remove it and see.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t know that to be so, given all the scaffolding above.

The Church has taught correctly that we are created in the image of God, male and female. The Church has taught correctly that we were meant for union with God, now and in the life to come. The Church has taught correctly about sexual complementarity, and the indissolubility of the procreative and unitive purposes of our sexual functions.

But I don’t know whether you agree with all that, minus the needless verbal scaffolding. Thus my suggestion we remove it and see.

So, I am pleased that we agree.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

You want to be correct?

No. I want to be accurate. Accuracy, however, does not appear to be any concern of yours.

You are not correct for me and to suggest that Jason Collins is SSA, as is the basis of this thread,

I never claimed or suggested he was SSA. That’s a term of art that you and others use. Moreover, I doubt that it is a term with which Mr. Collins is in any way familiar. I would not define Mr. Collins according to a term or understanding by which he would not or could not define himself. But you would.

I suggested only that given the terms by which Mr. Collins actually did define himself–none of which referred explicitly to same-sex sexual behavior–it was unreasonable to make a series of assumptions or judgments about him, his self-understanding, or his sexual habits if those assumptions and judgments were predicated on understanding the terms he used in a way which reflected an ideology which he would not recognize or by which he himself would not understand his own terms.

Lots of people hear “Catholic” and the first thing they think of is “priest scandals.” You say to some of these people, “I’m Catholic,” and what they hear is, “I support criminal priests and the people who enable them.” * But that is not an accurate understanding of what it means to be Catholic* and is, in fact, foreign to your own self-understanding. So why should I, observing your interaction with this hypothetical person, believe that the way in which they understand *your Catholic identity is more accurate than the way in which you yourself *understand *your *Catholic identity? The only way I would do so is if I shared their particular ideological understanding of your identity. But since I do not, I would be bound to correct them and say, “No. That’s not what he means at all.”

Something analogous is happening here with Mr. Collins…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!