Homosexuality Intrinsically Disordered?

[Setimet]

The statement that the church at some point said that it was a moral good to torture heretics is completely false. The church has never ever in its history has proclaimed such a thing. O am starting with that because I am shocked with that statement and is completely false.

First of all, I’m sorry I offended you. It was not my intent. There have been a lot of both intentional and unintentional insults on this forum, and I started to lose my patience, but that doesn’t make me causing offense ok. So for that I am truly sorry.

Regarding your statement, the church is holy, but full of sinners and humans who err. There are some great apologist articles on this such as this one: catholic.com/blog/hector-molina/on-your-marks-the-church-is-holy

Perhaps the simplest way to point out that the church did in fact “due such a thing” is to point out where the church apologizes for it in the Catechism:

“2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors. (2267)”

And while they might not have condoned shedding blood, they were ok with racking people and crushing members to cause internal bleeding.

Thomas Aquinas, a doctor of the church, himself says that heretics deserve to die. It is in Summa Theologica Question 11. Article 3. Under “I answer that…” newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm#article3

There is a lot of available research on this topic! Several encyclicals condoning torture of heretics, mistreating the Jews, AND encyclicals and apologies for such conduct.

**The church has made mistakes in the past, and it is a fact we all have to face, but it is still Holy because Christ founded it, not because the people in it are perfect. **

The is reason I am making this point to you is because, believe it or not I was once very scrupulous and it is both dangerous and idolatrous to behave as if another mortal human is impeccable.

That being said, I don’t have to tell you, that I’m QUITE human myself and am seriously struggling with potential sin right now.

The other point I have to correct is the immaculate conception. The church does not wake up one morning and says hey let come up with a new dogma and they pass a new dogma. What you stated about the immaculate conception gives that impression. The immaculate conception was not publicly promulgated until much later. That it wasn’t defined until much later is false.

I did not mean to "give that impression, but it seems like you read much farther into that statement then I was going. Let me explain this, as I seemed have to misworded what I said. The Immaculate Conception was not infallibly defined dogma until 1854, and her Assumption wasn’t until 1950. These are the only two instances of Papal Infallibitly being invoked by an ex cathedra statement in the church’s 2000 year history. uscatholic.org/church/2011/05/there-list-infallible-teachings

The church historically did write on Mary’s purity, and you are correct in saying the teaching did not just “come out of nowhere”. But whether or not she should be regarded specifically as the Immaculate Conception was debated. Two notable examples of opposition were St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Thomas Aquinas ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm

At some you stated that homosexuality or sinful of homosexuality is not a dogma. Again that is incorrect.

You’re right about my understanding of dogma newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

What I meant to say was that the church’s teaching on homosexuality is not infallibly defined dogma.

Again I refer to the Catechism:

“892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

I have traced the church’s teaching through recent encyclicals to Vatican II, and as far as I have seen it has not been stated in a definitive matter and the language " are to adhere to it with religious assent", has not been used. They do say “cannot be changed” or something like that, but it isn’t something unanimous from bishops. That would be difficult given that there are pro-gay Catholic bishops.

No I know that just because something isn’t infallibly defined doesn’t mean we don’t give it due reverence but if anyone could a document showing that it is infallibly defined or something to expand on my understanding of infallibilty I would greatly appreciate it

H’okay. Peace be with you.

Thanks!

 

[Setimet]

The other issue is that his explanation is inaccurate. given that more people who engage in sodomy are heterosexual than homosexual. It’s like using the word “thief” as a synonym for black people.

GOOD POINT. This leads to another tangent, from what I have been told it’s my understanding that the sex acts that occur between homosexuals are identical to ones what occur between heterosexuals.

It seems literally is gender alone that is the true issue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My point is actually that if y’all are going to make a stand, make a stand and fight back instead of doing it in such a way that not only are you ineffective, but make us look like bigots too.

“Take a stand,” as in? Getting people fired from their jobs for supporting no-fault divorce (a la Brendan Eich?) Coming up with a quaint phobia name to describe individuals who fear marriage for life? Identifying and making social pariahs out of divorced individuals. Refusing to do business with divorcees? Forcing bakeries to make wedding cakes only for those who sign binding contracts that they will never divorce and prosecuting divorced couples for obtaining wedding cakes under false pretenses?

By all means, let’s legislate morality because, obviously, using the ineffectual means of reasoned discourse and sound argument has been, well, ineffectual.

Time to learn FROM the SSM lobby, I guess, and bring out more coercive methods (being offensively intolerant of the intolerant) to counteract coercion. The time worn strategy of raising awareness that coercion and social manipulation are wrong, especially when they are subtle and pernicious, has become ineffectual at a time when individuals positively want to be coerced and manipulated.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The other issue is that his explanation is inaccurate. given that more people who engage in sodomy are heterosexual than homosexual. It’s like using the word “thief” as a synonym for black people.

Well, no actually because being “black” is totally incidental to being a thief, whereas the term homosexual is intrinsic to a preference for a particular kind of sexual act.

sodomy
[sod-uh-mee]
noun

1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.

Homosexual basically means having a distinct proclivity for certain acts that are defined under the term, “sodomy”. So having a distinct and undeniable preference for certain acts of sodomy is quite a legitimate use of the word “sodomite.”

While it might be true that some heterosexuals engage in sodomy, they would not be sodomites unless they engaged in sodomy to the exclusion of other sex acts. If that were the case, then, in theory, heterosexuals could be called “sodomites,” but the term applies without qualification to homosexuals. No?

It wouldn’t make sense to say the person is a “homosexual” but has absolutely no interest in having sex with members of his/her own gender, they simply prefer their company. That person wouldn’t BE homosexual.

Sodomy is what homosexuals do and is what defines them as “homosexual,” otherwise the term would have no meaning contra “heterosexual.” See definition #2 above.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It seems literally is gender alone that is the true issue.

I would take issue with this point if I could make heads or tails of what it means.

 

[Setimet]

Again, I reiterate, you shoot yourself in the foot when you refer to people as “Sodomite”. See the article below from which I took the following quote"

“The reason the Church avoids “gay” or “lesbian” itself is very simple: It tends to reduce the complexity and the richness of the human person to one aspect (which I’m not saying is unimportant by any means) of how they understand themselves.”

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/same-sex-attraction-and-the-catholic-church/#ixzz3AZoiKlIS

While it might be true that some heterosexuals engage in sodomy, they would not be sodomites unless they engaged in sodomy to the exclusion of other sex acts. If that were the case, then, in theory, heterosexuals could be called “sodomites,” but the term applies without qualification to homosexuals. No?

NO!!!

1. You assume they are engaging in sexual acts.
2. “they would not be sodomites unless they engaged in sodomy to the exclusion of other sex acts.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but you literally just made this up.
3. According to the definition of sodomite:

Sodomite
[sod-uh-mahyt]

noun

1. an inhabitant of Sodom.
2. (lowercase) a person who engages in sodomy.
   dictionary.reference.com/browse/sodomite?s=t

Any heterosexual who engages in anal or oral sex is a sodomite.

It wouldn’t make sense to say the person is a “homosexual” but has absolutely no interest in having sex with members of his/her own gender, they simply prefer their company. That person wouldn’t BE homosexual. Sodomy is what homosexuals do and is what defines them as “homosexual,” otherwise the term would have no meaning contra “heterosexual.” See definition #2 above.

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and take a wild guess and say you may not know many queers. I know this seems strange because the church focuses on teaching that homosexual sex acts is sinful–but sex is not what generally make people identify as homosexual.

Think of it this way, (I’m assuming your man) when you meet a woman you’re not like “grunt female make babies” then you knock her over the head and drag her away to be her wife. Ideally, you meet her, your relationship develops, you fall in love and become devoted and take a vow to be together for the rest of your life, then God willing if you’re called to it you have kids and start a family.

A woman who identifies in the secular sense as a “lesbian” or who the church would called “same-sex attracted”, either does not or has not yet been able to develop an intimate relationship (and by this I mean emotionally intimate, not physically) with a man.

For example, I know a celibate Catholic woman who really doesn’t like labeling her self lesbian or former lesbian or same-sex attracted, but she was in a relationship with a woman for many years, and by her own admission just can’t be intimate with a man. Her story is not a unique one. Ask any lesbian if they identify that way because “they wanted to have sex with women” or because “they form deep attachments with women that they don’t with men.” The exact same with gay men. There are in fact MANY queer people who do not want to be gay. I know that may seem hard to believe, but it’s true. And if you would like to find resources for you that confirm this, I can do so easily. That point might make more sense if you think of it as “they do not want that temptation”, but to just call it temptation misses the point that “they do not form intimate attachments with people of the opposite sex.” In the same that a heterosexual forms an intimate attachment with a person of the opposite sex and not someone of the same sex. As a heterosexual male, you don’t want to wake up next to a dude and commit the rest of your life to being with a man. Neither does a lesbian.

I want to point out that I’m not making a moral argument here, I’m just trying help you understand a perspective, with the hope that you are realize, as the first article I posted pointed out, these are human beings, not just “sodomites”.

 

[Setimet]

I would take issue with this point if I could make heads or tails of what it means.

Thank you for blindly disagreeing with me even though you didn’t know what I was saying because that is hilarious.

I don’t know what you are saying, but if I did I would disagree with it!

I’m trying to learn, this is nothing personal against you, so I hope you don’t take it that way. And for the record if you met me, and the other woman in real life, you would probably have no idea we’re questioning these things. The priest we’ve been seeing actually recognized us from our frequent separate visits to Adoration. Which is why I’m trying to politely stress not to use the word Sodomite, because you never know who is around. Since this “happened” there have been four people I’ve known independently, and I had no idea they were queer. One of which was our deacon’s daughter, who is currently struggling in a relationship with a man, but has remained faithful. I’m trying to tell you this is difficult for people, don’t make it harder by dehumanizing and insulting them. And I realize, that most likely wasn’t even your intention.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Thank you for blindly disagreeing with me even though you didn’t know what I was saying because that is hilarious.

I don’t know what you are saying, but if I did I would disagree with it!

Yes, it was intended as a joke, so feel free to lighten up.

I’m trying to learn, this is nothing personal against you, so I hope you don’t take it that way. And for the record if you met me, and the other woman in real life, you would probably have no idea we’re questioning these things. The priest we’ve been seeing actually recognized us from our frequent separate visits to Adoration. Which is why I’m trying to politely stress not to use the word Sodomite, because you never know who is around. Since this “happened” there have been four people I’ve known independently, and I had no idea they were queer. One of which was our deacon’s daughter, who is currently struggling in a relationship with a man, but has remained faithful. I’m trying to tell you this is difficult for people, don’t make it harder by dehumanizing and insulting them. And I realize, that most likely wasn’t even your intention.

Just for the record, I have never used the word sodomite in any conversation, ever, except this one, just as I have never used the word “queer.” Nor do I have the slightest intention of ever using either of them because I don’t think there is an actual ontological category to which either refer. I also doubt the word “homosexual” is a meaningful concept; which means, ipso facto, that “heterosexual” is also a fabricated concept mostly which arose to contradistinguish the normative behaviour state from “homosexual.”

My point was that based upon a dictionary definition of “sodomy,” a “sodomite” would better serve to describe someone who practices “sodomy” exclusively by choice or inclination (lives in Sodom as a resident or is a natural-born Sodomite) than someone who engages in acts of sodomy incidentally (visits infrequently.)

As I say, since I have no intention of using the term beyond this conversation, the entire discussion is a moot point, anyway.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Again, I reiterate, you shoot yourself in the foot when you refer to people as “Sodomite”.

Perhaps, but you are cutting off the branch of the tree upon which you are sitting using the old saw you trot out next…
Setimet;12263957:

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and take a wild guess and say you may not know many queers.

You are correct. AND neither do I know any “heterosexuals” because as soon as anyone starts identifying as either, that is my cue to politely excuse myself and find a person rather than a “category” to talk to and get to know.