J
jjr9
Guest
Of course I can be wrong. That is why I turned to the Magisterium for clarification and explanation.
God bless
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
God bless
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes it is clear. But to get to what the Church is Teaching - one must quote the FULL section. To get at what the Church is Teaching.CCC 2357:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or
predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”
What the Magisterium says here is clear, unambiguous and false.
Your difficulty here is your missing what the Church is Teaching …mis reading it. Got to read the full thing.
I have answered.What you say here is not clear for me.
CCC 2357:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or
predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”
What do you believe the Magisterium is saying here? Don’t answer if you don’t want to.
Where is this stated?
Where?
In the MORAL section of the Catechism.
What is being discussed?
The question of how if someone experiences only attraction to the same sex or both sexes?
No.
Clear now?
What is it discussing?
The morality of homosexual relations
This is the MORAL section of the Catechism.
The Church is not teaching what you suggest. Just as the Church does not get into teaching if Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Those are questions for empirical Science.
What is the Magisterium Teaching in that section?
About morality. Chastity.
Such** moral teachings apply to everyone** who experiences homosexual attractions - no matter who much they claim to experience. **No matter if they say the experience **attraction to both sexs or even if they say they experience attraction to only the same sex (as some here noted people say they do).
The Teaching there is not about what you think it is. You are misreading it.
The Teaching in that section is about the Morality.
Not questions of empirical science.
J
jjr9
Guest
For me the Magisterium is defining what they will be discussing in the “Chastity and homosexuality” sectionYes it is clear. But to get to what the Church is Teaching - one must quote the FULL section. To get at what the Church is Teaching.
Your difficulty here is your missing what the Church is Teaching …mis reading it. Got to read the full thing.
I have answered.
Where is this stated?
Where?
In the MORAL section of the Catechism.
What is being discussed?
The question of how if someone experiences only attraction to the same sex or both sexes?
No.
Clear now?
What is it discussing?
The morality of homosexual relations
This is the MORAL section of the Catechism.
The Church is not teaching what you suggest. Just as the Church does not get into teaching if Earth is the third planet from the Sun. Those are questions for empirical Science.
What is the Magisterium Teaching in that section?
About morality. Chastity.
Such** moral teachings apply to everyone** who experiences homosexual attractions - no matter who much they claim to experience. **No matter if they say the experience **attraction to both sexs or even if they say they experience attraction to only the same sex (as some here noted people say they do).
The Teaching there is not about what you think it is. You are misreading it.
The Teaching in that section is about the Morality.
Not questions of empirical science.
which for me makes perfect sense. Unfortunately I believe the Magisterium is defining a false premise. The
Magisterium is claiming what is false to be true.
I believe you are sincere in your belief I hope you can accept that I am.
God bless
B
Bookcat
Guest
Your belief is mistaken.For me the Magisterium is defining what they will be discussing in the “Chastity and homosexuality” section
which for me makes perfect sense. Unfortunately I believe the Magisterium is defining a false premise. The
Magisterium is claiming what is false to be true.
I believe you are sincere in your belief I hope you can accept that I am.
God bless
As is demonstrated by my posts and that of others etc.
The Church is discussing MORALITY.
**“Experience” is a subjective thing. A subjectively reported thing.
The Church is saying that no matter what ones **“experience” ** - of such attractions and inclinations - one must be chaste.
That is what the Church is Teaching there.
In the Morality section.
Not defining some emperical question.
Morality.
See also the other Documents from the Holy See.
T
Tagetes
Guest
jjr9, you have an elephant trunk instead of the nose and wings instead of arms. I am sincere in that belief. Your objection that you have a nose and arms doesn’t concern me. It’s a false premise. By insisting that you have a nose and arms you’re claiming what is false to be true.
I hope that you can accept that you don’t have a nose and arms, because I said so. We can agree to disagree, for sure. Just don’t you dare mention your nose or arms, ever. It’s a lie, you don’t have them. Your nose and arms are mythical. Trunk and wings, jjr9, trunk and wings.
I hope that you can accept that you don’t have a nose and arms, because I said so. We can agree to disagree, for sure. Just don’t you dare mention your nose or arms, ever. It’s a lie, you don’t have them. Your nose and arms are mythical. Trunk and wings, jjr9, trunk and wings.
R
Rau
Guest
How is it that you know with certainty what others do or don’t experience? It is enough that there are those who in all honesty report that their attractions are exclusively to the same sex. The CCC is worded in such a manner that these people will know that what is taught applies to them too. They are not a special case, exempted from the requirements of chastity.For me the Magisterium is defining what they will be discussing in the “Chastity and homosexuality” section
which for me makes perfect sense. Unfortunately I believe the Magisterium is defining a false premise.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Discussing how persons are to live chastity in the light of this or that “experience” - is just that. It is not a statement that empirically there are persons who only be attracted to the same sex.
This is about moral teaching…in the* moral* section.
Not something else.
Hence the use of the term “experience” (a subjective oriented term) instead of something ontological.
This is about moral teaching…in the* moral* section.
Not something else.
Hence the use of the term “experience” (a subjective oriented term) instead of something ontological.
G
goout
Guest
It might be in error when it “corrects” itself.
And you can safely ignore the Magisterium -if- it were in error.
And you can safely ignore the Magisterium -if- it were in error.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Thank you!People asserting something does not make it true.
S
ShanPO
Guest
The problem is you’re turning to the Magisterium to clarify something that doesn’t need to be clarified. As many others have said, the Magisterium in it’s teaching doesn’t give a good golly gosh darn about whether or not people feel exclusive SSA or partial SSA or any variation thereof. It says it in the paragraph! The only one who is making a mountain out of a mole hill here is you.Of course I can be wrong. That is why I turned to the Magisterium for clarification and explanation.
God bless
A few posters on here have told you that they experience only SSA, are you completely ignoring their testimony? What you’re saying is something like this:
jjr9: I don’t believe there are people in this world who have tattoos
ShanPO: But I have a tattoo
jjr9: No, you might think you have a tattoo, but I don’t believe anyone has a tattoo
ShanPO: Nope, I have a tattoo, I promise it’s there
Do you see how ridiculous that is? The only measure for what you’re seeking is personal experience, and since that experience has been given to you, you either have to believe it, or call those who are sharing it with you liars.
And again, the only person who really believes this is an issue IS YOU!!! Your priest doesn’t think it’s an issue, your bishop didn’t think it to be an issue, and no less than 25 people on this forum have told you IT’S NOT AN ISSUE!!!
So please, you seem like an OK person, and passionate about what you believe in, just find another cause. One that is worthy, and uplifting.
J
jjr9
Guest
I believe we agree that the Magisterium accepts the “homosexual person” as real, that some peoplejjr9, you have an elephant trunk instead of the nose and wings instead of arms. I am sincere in that belief. Your objection that you have a nose and arms doesn’t concern me. It’s a false premise. By insisting that you have a nose and arms you’re claiming what is false to be true.
I hope that you can accept that you don’t have a nose and arms, because I said so. We can agree to disagree, for sure. Just don’t you dare mention your nose or arms, ever. It’s a lie, you don’t have them. Your nose and arms are mythical. Trunk and wings, jjr9, trunk and wings.
have an exclusive SSA.
I have had a couple of Priests let me know that they believe the Magisterium has not gone far enough
in accepting the “homosexual person” and should consider SS behavior acceptable presumably in
“marriage”.
When Cardinal Marx says:
“the Church should support “regulating” homosexual partnerships. “We as church cannot be against it.””
Cardinal Marx seems to being headed in the same direction as the Priests I had talked to.
What do you think, has the Magisterium gone far enough in accepting the “homosexual person”?
God bless
J
jjr9
Guest
Just as the Magisterium has started with a false premise that anyone has an exclusive SSA.The problem is you’re turning to the Magisterium to clarify something that doesn’t need to be clarified. As many others have said, the Magisterium in it’s teaching doesn’t give a good golly gosh darn about whether or not people feel exclusive SSA or partial SSA or any variation thereof. It says it in the paragraph! The only one who is making a mountain out of a mole hill here is you.
A few posters on here have told you that they experience only SSA, are you completely ignoring their testimony? What you’re saying is something like this:
jjr9: I don’t believe there are people in this world who have tattoos
ShanPO: But I have a tattoo
jjr9: No, you might think you have a tattoo, but I don’t believe anyone has a tattoo
ShanPO: Nope, I have a tattoo, I promise it’s there
Do you see how ridiculous that is? The only measure for what you’re seeking is personal experience, and since that experience has been given to you, you either have to believe it, or call those who are sharing it with you liars.
And again, the only person who really believes this is an issue IS YOU!!! Your priest doesn’t think it’s an issue, your bishop didn’t think it to be an issue, and no less than 25 people on this forum have told you IT’S NOT AN ISSUE!!!
So please, you seem like an OK person, and passionate about what you believe in, just find another cause. One that is worthy, and uplifting.
You start with a false premise that “I don’t believe there are people in this world who have tattoos”.
You seem like an OK person too. If you ever find a substantive reason to believe anyone is incapable
of OSA please let me know about it.
God bless
S
ShanPO
Guest
People have told you here they are incapable of OSA, on this very thread. Do you not believe them?Just as the Magisterium has started with a false premise that anyone has an exclusive SSA.
You start with a false premise that “I don’t believe there are people in this world who have tattoos”.
You seem like an OK person too. If you ever find a substantive reason to believe anyone is incapable
of OSA please let me know about it.
God bless
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi ShanPO. The question I would like ask you is, Do you know that jjr9 believes what he professes to believe? And, if so, how do you know?The problem is you’re turning to the Magisterium to clarify something that doesn’t need to be clarified. As many others have said, the Magisterium in it’s teaching doesn’t give a good golly gosh darn about whether or not people feel exclusive SSA or partial SSA or any variation thereof. It says it in the paragraph! The only one who is making a mountain out of a mole hill here is you.
A few posters on here have told you that they experience only SSA, are you completely ignoring their testimony? What you’re saying is something like this:
jjr9: I don’t believe there are people in this world who have tattoos
ShanPO: But I have a tattoo
jjr9: No, you might think you have a tattoo, but I don’t believe anyone has a tattoo
ShanPO: Nope, I have a tattoo, I promise it’s there
Do you see how ridiculous that is? The only measure for what you’re seeking is personal experience, and since that experience has been given to you, you either have to believe it, or call those who are sharing it with you liars.
And again, the only person who really believes this is an issue IS YOU!!! Your priest doesn’t think it’s an issue, your bishop didn’t think it to be an issue, and no less than 25 people on this forum have told you IT’S NOT AN ISSUE!!!
So please, you seem like an OK person, and passionate about what you believe in, just find another cause. One that is worthy, and uplifting.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Also forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14394254&postcount=309Your belief is mistaken.
As is demonstrated by my posts and that of others etc.
The Church is discussing MORALITY.
**“Experience” is a subjective thing. A subjectively reported thing.
The Church is saying that no matter what ones **“experience” ** - of such attractions and inclinations - one must be chaste.
That is what the Church is Teaching there.
In the Morality section.
Not defining some emperical question.
Morality.
See also the other Documents from the Holy See.
And forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14394459&postcount=314 etc
No the Magisterium has not started with a false premise.Just as the Magisterium has started with a false premise that anyone has an exclusive SSA.
Question: Does the Magisterium teach that “anyone is incapable
of OSA”
Answer: No the Magisterium does not teach that. And this is what your missing.
It has been demonstrated that your simply not correct in your premise.
S
ShanPO
Guest
I can only take what jjr9 has said at face value and believe it. So the extent of my knowledge comes from the experience I’ve had of his sharing his beliefs with us. However, we’re not discussing epistemology here. jjr9 has made a claim about something he believes to be true, and because he has argued it for almost 350 posts now (and several other threads from what I’ve read here) I feel that’s good enough evidence to feel secure that he really believes what he’s saying.Hi ShanPO. The question I would like ask you is, Do you know that jjr9 believes what he professes to believe? And, if so, how do you know?
So again, if he hears from several sources that they only experience SSA and have no predisposition to OSA at all it’s up to him to accept or reject it, which apparently he firmly rejects. The issue with rejecting that first hand knowledge is that it discounts the experience of the individual sharing it, rendering them non-existent in his opinion. It reminds me of when I hear idiot white supremacists say things like the Holocaust didn’t happen, even though we have personal first hand testimony that it has.
jjr9 has an issue with the wording in the CCC regarding something that is very much a non-issue to almost everyone he’s asked about this, and my suggestion is that he realizes that he’s wrong in his thinking and move on and direct that passion to something else that actually matters.
R
Rau
Guest
The Church believes and teaches that, notwithstanding the attractions some people may experience toward the same sex, sexual acts between such persons are intrinsically evil. It also believes and teaches that unjust discrimination toward such people is wrong. I feel this strikes the right balance. How about you?…What do you think, has the Magisterium gone far enough in accepting the “homosexual person”?
R
Rau
Guest
Please tell us more of these interesting personal conversations you had with priests who openly contradicted the doctrine of the Church. Did you report those priests to their bishop?…I have had a couple of Priests let me know that they believe the Magisterium has not gone far enough in accepting the “homosexual person” and should consider SS behavior acceptable presumably in “marriage”.
R
Rau
Guest
Not sure if they said exactly that. Presumably they said they experience no attraction to the opposite sex. What might happen one day…who knows?People have told you here they are incapable of OSA, on this very thread. Do you not believe them?
S
ShanPO
Guest
You are correct in both. One can never know who’s going to walk by and knock one’s socks off.Not sure if they said exactly that. Presumably they said they experience no attraction to the opposite sex. What might happen one day…who knows?
Although, I feel it’s a safe assumption to go with if one has never experienced OSA, they will probably never do so. Again, just a personal assumption, so I could be wrong in that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.