How can you change sexual orientation or lose it?

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

You can affirm or disprove such a belief by observing whether or not two homosexuals in a romantic relationship are increasing in virtue and are flourishing as human beings on account of the nature of the relationship. Are they demonstrably better human beings for being in relationship, or are they demonstrably much worse off? Very simple.

If a homosexual romantic relationship is incapable of producing or fostering virtue, it should be demonstrably clear that all who are in such a relationship are debauched and that the relationship represents a demonstrably clear obstacle to the expression of virtue. Two otherwise lovely people in such a relationship should be suffering in it (decrease in virtue, decrease in the fruits of the Spirit), and it should be demonstrably clear that they are suffering. Such suffering would be a clear indication that it is the nature of the relationship that is destroying the people in it. And it should be demonstrably clear that all such relationships produce identical results in order to maintain the belief that homosexuality is disordered.

It really is very simple.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

No. You are missing the point. You are creating a direct line cause and effect that I am denying. You keep repeating your premise without addressing my question. To wit: how will you prove that the homosexual relationship is the CAUSE of said virtue? there are other Z factors at play in your scenario, for instance, increasing maturity or increasing wisdom. Or my favorite–God’s Grace in spite of our own broken, fallen nature.

As I pointed out in my examples, people can have a horrible sin active in their lives and still be capable of virtue to some degree. For heaven’s sake, you are claiming that sin = debauchery and while that certainly can be true, it is not always true.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

(The hypothetical you introduced following your change of the OP question to if one can live out one’s sexual orientation virtuously, that is in chastity and increase in virtue)

…

Here are the salient features:

1–There is a couple.
2–The couple is in a chaste romantic relationship …
3–People notice that the couple is increasing in virtue by virtue of their relationship together.

…would it be reasonable of us to assume that the relationship so described should be destroyed if we discover that it is a homosexual relationship? If it is clear that the relationship in which our couple is participating is conducive to real human flourishing (that is, growth in virtue) in a way that is often quite unique to couples in romantic love, does it constitute virtue in us to desire or maintain that the catalyst of virtue in our hypothetical couple (their relationship) be dissolved?
…
I’m not, by the way, insisting that Roman Catholicism accept a worldview apart from its very own.
…
It seems clear to me that denying the possibility that homosexual romantic relationships can produce virtue is part of claiming the safety of keeping to the purity of a moral party line. It seems that observing the letter but not the spirit of the law is the order of the day.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Michelle and Elizabeth have brought up cogent challenges.

Please excuse me for snipping parts of your quote above and retaining those I wish to address.

Mark, in this Catholic site, do you think it is appropriate to advance a position and wringing of Catholic concepts and teaching on homosexuality? I bring this up because you have done the same in past threads and the site as you know is visited by young members struggling with homosexuality, looking for answers.

This may come across as harsh to your ears and may not be what young members want to hear as they are simply looking for exceptions that would justify sexual behavior not consistent with Catholic teaching.

To address what is in your post, yes, it is reasonable to assume that the relationship so described in your hypothetical should be destroyed if we discover that it is a homosexual relationship. You insinuate the opposite in maintaining a personal concept of ‘human flourishing’ based on idealized homosexual relationships.

No virtue or fruit or human flourishing can come out of homosexual romantic relationships as their logical direction is actualization of sin. The moral line is clear. The letter and spirit of the law are not ambiguous and do not clash as you imply.

For the benefit of the young readers of this thread, Pope BXVI recently published this message :

Sexuality has an intrinsic meaning and direction which is not homosexual. The meaning and direction of sexuality is to bring about the union of man and woman and in this way give humanity posterity, children, future. This is the determination internal to the essence of sexuality. Everything else is against sexuality’s intrinsic meaning and direction. This is a point we need to hold firm, even if it is not pleasing to our age.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Any disordered lifestyle (not limited only to homosexual bheavior) presents [a demonstrably clear obstacle to the expression of virtue]…when considered comprehensively. The person is essentially compromised; their full expression of personhood is essentially compromised, regardless of appearances and what else is “demonstrable” about the person.

Indeed.

To believe, however, that such a compromise does not produce any outward signs of its presence is a bit strange. Does it always immediately? No. Of course not. But it always will. And the presence or absence of virtue in a person will inevitably affect the communities of which he or she is member. When we say that sin is its own punishment, it is to say that not only is our soul damaged in sin, but the consequences of our sin ripple out and affect all of our relationships in sometimes subtle but always real ways. These ripples, however subtle, are observable.

The dis-integrated person does not become integrated by the retroactive intellectual application of “virtue” to an essentially dis-ordered life.

You’re right of course. But I’m not talking about retroactive intellectual applications of virtue. I’m talking about recognizing virtue when we see it.

You say it is impossible to do so because our perceptions are necessarily subjective. I say it is possible because we are made to experience the good and the good is not subjective.

Suffering, and certainly moral disease, are not “demonstrably clear” (necessarily) externally.

You’ll notice that I defined suffering here as “decrease in virtue, decrease in the fruits of the Spirit.” Of what else can real suffering be comprised?

Again, this is something that Jesus also affirmed, and something which the Roman Church has incorporated into its theology of dis-ease and the interior suffering which is invisible but real, and the fruit of a corrupted lifestyle (of any kind).

If it’s real, it will have a real manifestation. Our Lord says that we can tell a tree by its fruit. Why don’t you believe him? Saint Paul says that we can test the spirits. Why don’t you believe him?

I’m beginning to suspect that creation, to you (as it was to the Gnostics), is one big trap–is always masking it’s true diabolical intentions–that all things are so corrupt that we cannot actually begin to guess at the extent of the corruption which largely remains hidden or invisible. As invisible, it is present everywhere. We cannot trust that we will know the good when it comes to us–it may be hiding something very evil and therefore not be very good at all. Everything is dangerous. Everything is to be avoided. Vice often masquerades as a smiling virtue. Nothing can be trusted. It’s best to hunker down in place and trust only those who know the proper passwords, can say the proper words, who are part of our own vetted group. It’s us against them.

I’m sorry, but if that’s the vision of the world or the vision of Christian joy and freedom to which the Roman Catholic Church is calling people, then I hope you will excuse me if I want no part of it!

My suspicion is that a certain scrupulosity has led to this distrust of all things and a concomitant over-reliance on the letter, but not the spirit, of the moral law. Our Lord is one who reaps where he does not sow, as the parable suggests, and who asks us to risk what we have been given for the furtherance of the kingdom. To the servant who did not risk what his master had entrusted to him, there was recrimination and punishment, not reward. There is no virtue in constantly seeking a spiritual security which amounts to little more than a moral complacency.

You don’t have to accept all this, Mark, but you are not at liberty to reinterpret the teachings of the Roman Church according to your “personal experience” (which is subjective, not objective). No matter how many supposed witnesses you obtain to verify your “personal experience,” it remains a subjective worldview that is not consonant with Moral Law as abundantly explicated in scripture and through the lives and writings of the Saints. You keep saying you’re not trying to change the Catechism, but your words demonstrate quite the opposite.

Moses and Abraham argued with God. But the catechism cannot be questioned in a specific situation when mounting scientific and experiential evidence suggest that a particular articulation/understanding of a larger truth about human relationships has not been articulated or understood very well by that catechism?

Elizabeth, once more I get the feeling that you would throw over the spirit of the law in order to observe its letter. But that’s not morality. That’s complacency. There is a difference.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To wit: how will you prove that the homosexual relationship is the CAUSE of said virtue? there are other Z factors at play in your scenario, for instance, increasing maturity or increasing wisdom.

I’ve answered above. You did not like the answer. That’s fine. Repeating the question won’t change the answer.

You maintain that a homosexual relationship cannot foster virtue. If we cannot observe any virtues in the relationship directly related to the fact of the relationship, we can at least observe whether or not the relationship supports the growth of the virtues that may be present. We can observe this in any relationship. How many times have we seen friends in relationships and said, “this relationship is really good for them,” or how many times have we observed a friend in decline in a relationship and thought, “that relationship is no good for them–they need to get out of it!” We’re not talking about rocket science here. There’s no special secret to this sort of discernment.

Or my favorite–God’s Grace in spite of our own broken, fallen nature.

And what of the possibility that God’s grace is present in a homosexual relationship?

For heaven’s sake, you are claiming that sin = debauchery and while that certainly can be true, it is not always true.

Isn’t it, though? Does not sin debauch the soul?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Mark, in this Catholic site, do you think it is appropriate to advance a position and wringing of Catholic concepts and teaching on homosexuality? I bring this up because you have done the same in past threads and the site as you know is visited by young members struggling with homosexuality, looking for answers.

Yes. I believe it is appropriate to be in dialogue with one’s tradition and with one’s community, and I consider my Roman Catholic brethren part of my tradition, part of my community by virtue of the fact that we are diverse members of the One Body of Christ. Living the moral life in community does not stop once we read the catechism and believe we have all the right answers.

No virtue or fruit or human flourishing can come out of homosexual romantic relationships as their logical direction is actualization of sin. The moral line is clear. The letter and spirit of the law are not ambiguous and do not clash as you imply.

Here’s the bottom line: **Either you can tell a tree by its fruit or you can’t. Either Our Lord was telling the truth when he said that we could, or he was lying to us. If a homosexual relationship is the actualization of sin, we should be able to observe the fruit of sin in every homosexual relationship and know that it was caused by that relationship. If the catechism’s characterization of these relationships is correct, it should be borne out in reality, and we should be able to see it borne out as such. How is that such a hard concept to grasp? **

Regardless. I wonder which statement your italicized text is closest to: “We know where the Spirit is working–but we would not dare to say where the Spirit is not working,” or, “Despite the evidence of virtue, it is incumbent upon us to occasionally deny the work of goodness in a handful situations–in such situations, we must deny the work of the Spirit in order to maintain the purity of the party line.” One of them strikes me as humble–the other looks a bit like blasphemy.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

I’ve answered above. You did not like the answer. That’s fine. Repeating the question won’t change the answer.

You maintain that a homosexual relationship cannot foster virtue. If we cannot observe any virtues in the relationship directly related to the fact of the relationship, we can at least observe whether or not the relationship supports the growth of the virtues that may be present. We can observe this in any relationship. How many times have we seen friends in relationships and said, “this relationship is really good for them,” or how many times have we observed a friend in decline in a relationship and thought, “that relationship is no good for them–they need to get out of it!” We’re not talking about rocket science here. There’s no special secret to this sort of discernment.

And what of the possibility that God’s grace is present in a homosexual relationship?

Isn’t it, though? Does not sin debauch the soul?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I’m done banging my head against the brick wall. but Mark, I would request that you consider that your posts are contrary to Catholic teaching and you are posting on a ***Catholic ***Answers website. Don’t the Anglicans have Forums?

I do not get the sense that you are truly trying to learn, to change your point of view. you are attempting to change our minds, and quite frankly, you’re not up to the task of changing the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I’m done banging my head against the brick wall. but Mark, I would request that you consider that your posts are contrary to Catholic teaching and you are posting on a ***Catholic ***Answers website. Don’t the Anglicans have Forums?

I do not get the sense that you are truly trying to learn, to change your point of view. you are attempting to change our minds, and quite frankly, you’re not up to the task of changing the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Michelle, here’s the issue: either moral teaching is true not because of its content, but because of the authority that articulates it, or it is true because it demonstrably upholds, supports and articulates the good. If the former, the good is arbitrary, based on what someone says it is. If the latter, the good is believed to be objective and recognizable as such, and the moral teaching is authoritative because of it’s relationship to the good. If what the catechism says about homosexual relationships cannot be demonstrably observed as true, then it is true not because of the nature of the teaching, but because of the nature of the authority articulating that teaching.

I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church would maintain that what it teaches is authoritative and true because it best articulates the good, and the authority with which the teaching is articulated is derived from the objective goodness of the teaching. The argument that I’m hearing in this thread and others like it does not reflect this understanding because it denies that the goodness of the teaching is actually demonstrable. The argument amounts, therefore, to an appeal to authority, not an appeal to the moral good. This is what is frustrating to me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[ivebeenshown]

Are they demonstrably better human beings for being in relationship, or are they demonstrably much worse off? Very simple.

Worse off because they are committing grave sins.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
Yes. I believe it is appropriate to be in dialogue with one’s tradition and with one’s community, and I consider my Roman Catholic brethren part of my tradition, part of my community by virtue of the fact that we are diverse members of the One Body of Christ. Living the moral life in community does not stop once we read the catechism and believe we have all the right answers.

I beg to differ. That is a personalized interpretation of tradition.

Here’s the bottom line: Either you can tell a tree by its fruit or you can’t. Either Our Lord was telling the truth when he said that we could, or he was lying to us. If a homosexual relationship is the actualization of sin, we should be able to observe the fruit of sin in every homosexual relationship and know that it was caused by that relationship. If the catechism’s characterization of these relationships is correct, it should be borne out in reality, and we should be able to see it borne out as such. How is that such a hard concept to grasp?

You are the one that’s having a hard time grasping the concept of moral teaching on the matter.

In your effort to justify an individual situation or those around you, please don’t extend it to spin Christ’s admonition on one telling a tree by its fruit and what the Catechism teaches as a whole on the subject. You pick bits and pieces to suit and even tailor a worldview of what many in this age is indulgence in a pet sin. As the pope’s wise words conveyed, we need to hold firm that sexuality has a meaning and direction that is not homosexual. Should young readers in this forum take your words versus his?

Here’s the bottom line for Catholics who are not following blindly as advanced by non-Catholics and dissenters in the faith: we don’t exchange earthly comfort and pleasures that serve in effect as idols for eternal life.

Mark, your gentleness and thoughtfulness come across in your posts, which I appreciate. It is hard, though, to have a meeting of the minds on your interpretation of moral law as taught in the words of Christ and the common tradition that our faiths share.

Peter Kreeft explained it well, homosexual relationships that are faithful and sincere do not change the truth that such relationships are not moral.

Regardless. I wonder which statement your italicized text is closest to: “We know where the Spirit is working–but we would not dare to say where the Spirit is not working,” or, “Despite the evidence of virtue, it is incumbent upon us to occasionally deny the work of goodness in a handful situations–in such situations, we must deny the work of the Spirit in order to maintain the purity of the party line.” One of them strikes me as humble–the other looks a bit like blasphemy.

Distillation and apologetics by Deo Volente.

Let me close this with greetings for a Happy Thanksgiving, Mark.

ISoG

 

[Elizabeth502]

You say it is impossible to do so because our perceptions are necessarily subjective. I say it is possible because we are made to experience the good and the good is not subjective.

We can be deceived by what is “good” (what seems good/acceptable/uplifting/elevating) when our lives are intrinsically disordered, because disorder alters our vision.

I’m beginning to suspect that creation, to you (as it was to the Gnostics), is one big trap–is always masking it’s true diabolical intentions–that all things are so corrupt that we cannot actually begin to guess at the extent of the corruption which largely remains hidden or invisible. [snip]…

You tried this rather disingenous manipulation technique the last time you and I dialogued extensively about this on this forum. I told you then, I will tell you now: You’re not going to pin on me personally the responsibility for the moral teaching of the Roman Church, even if your interpretation in this quote above were accurate (which, of course, it is not even close to being accurate). Creation “to me” is precisely what it is to the Church of which I am a member: gloriously ordered, and inviting us to share in that order. As I said in previous conversations with you, we all have our disordered attractions & inclinations; they differ by person and they differ by kind (sexual, non-sexual, etc.). We are all called to the miraculous grace of an infinitely merciful God to redirect our unhealthy inclinations so that we may be fully – not partially – his sons and daughters, and so that we may conform ourselves to the grandeur that he intends for us, both in this life and in the next.

I’m sorry that you regard such an invitation as unattractive. Whenever (again repeating what I said many months ago) we persist in our disorders for long enough, we have a resistance not only to change, but to be able to envision a habit of behavior other than what we have practiced. That’s what happens to non-complying Roman Catholics, for example, before we revert: we have difficulty being convinced of the greater attractiveness of what we can be, versus what we are used to being. The Christian, as Saints and Popes and holy followers have told us, is called to continual conversion, each of us without exception. Conversion is always difficult, no matter who we are, no matter what our personal moral challenges.

I’m sorry, but if that’s the vision of the world or the vision of Christian joy and freedom to which the Roman Catholic Church is calling people, then I hope you will excuse me if I want no part of it!.. My suspicion is that a certain scrupulosity has led to this distrust of all things

I have not even vaguely referred to or alluded to scrupulosity. But freedom is not license. Jesus the Jew regarded the ‘fence’ of the Torah, as did his contemporaries, as the means to freedom, not a denial of freedom. The Moral Law is the means to spiritual liberation. Jesus Himself spoke about this.

There is no virtue in constantly seeking a spiritual security which amounts to little more than a moral complacency.

I’m not morally complacent. That’s a label that you are equating with a denial of the individual as the seat of moral authority. Spiritual security is not complacency (presumption), but true freedom is also not found in moral autonomy. The entire Christian life, for anyone, requires vigilance and constant (daily) renewal. No one’s “lifestyle,” including state in life (if priest, religious sister, etc.), or sexual orientation provides any more surety of salvation and a share in the divine life than someone else’s.

Elizabeth, once more I get the feeling that you would throw over the spirit of the law in order to observe its letter.

Don’t saddle me with your distortions of my explanations, first of all. You are not addressing the concepts I have discussed; rather you have reduced and re-created my statements to be something utterly different from what they are. Second, you are attributing to my authorship the moral teaching of the Roman Church. As I have said more than once, I am not a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I have zero authority to create moral theology for Roman Catholicism. If you believe that the Catechism is all about Law and nothing about Spirit, then I will suggest that you do that document a disservice. Probably three-quarters of it is footnotes, referring to Scripture, Church documents, Patristics, writings of the Saints, and much more. There is a rich spirituality in these references, which are the very foundation for the Catechism, which I had no hand in authoring.

I will pray for you on Thanksgiving, that Jesus Himself will touch you with Truth, Mercy, and Blessing.

 

[shaky]

Grace & Peace!

Indeed.

To believe, however, that such a compromise does not produce any outward signs of its presence is a bit strange. Does it always immediately? No. Of course not. But it always will. And the presence or absence of virtue in a person will inevitably affect the communities of which he or she is member. When we say that sin is its own punishment, it is to say that not only is our soul damaged in sin, but the consequences of our sin ripple out and affect all of our relationships in sometimes subtle but always real ways. These ripples, however subtle, are observable.

You’re right of course. But I’m not talking about retroactive intellectual applications of virtue. I’m talking about recognizing virtue when we see it.

You say it is impossible to do so because our perceptions are necessarily subjective. I say it is possible because we are made to experience the good and the good is not subjective.

You’ll notice that I defined suffering here as “decrease in virtue, decrease in the fruits of the Spirit.” Of what else can real suffering be comprised?

If it’s real, it will have a real manifestation. Our Lord says that we can tell a tree by its fruit. Why don’t you believe him? Saint Paul says that we can test the spirits. Why don’t you believe him?

I’m beginning to suspect that creation, to you (as it was to the Gnostics), is one big trap–is always masking it’s true diabolical intentions–that all things are so corrupt that we cannot actually begin to guess at the extent of the corruption which largely remains hidden or invisible. As invisible, it is present everywhere. We cannot trust that we will know the good when it comes to us–it may be hiding something very evil and therefore not be very good at all. Everything is dangerous. Everything is to be avoided. Vice often masquerades as a smiling virtue. Nothing can be trusted. It’s best to hunker down in place and trust only those who know the proper passwords, can say the proper words, who are part of our own vetted group. It’s us against them.

I’m sorry, but if that’s the vision of the world or the vision of Christian joy and freedom to which the Roman Catholic Church is calling people, then I hope you will excuse me if I want no part of it!

My suspicion is that a certain scrupulosity has led to this distrust of all things and a concomitant over-reliance on the letter, but not the spirit, of the moral law. Our Lord is one who reaps where he does not sow, as the parable suggests, and who asks us to risk what we have been given for the furtherance of the kingdom. To the servant who did not risk what his master had entrusted to him, there was recrimination and punishment, not reward. There is no virtue in constantly seeking a spiritual security which amounts to little more than a moral complacency.

Moses and Abraham argued with God. But the catechism cannot be questioned in a specific situation when mounting scientific and experiential evidence suggest that a particular articulation/understanding of a larger truth about human relationships has not been articulated or understood very well by that catechism?

Elizabeth, once more I get the feeling that you would throw over the spirit of the law in order to observe its letter. But that’s not morality. That’s complacency. There is a difference.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

How can you say ‘‘suffering’’ is a decrease in virtue and a decrease in the fruits of the spirit?
Long-’‘suffering’’ is one of the fruits of the spirit!

 

[shaky]

Grace & Peace!

Michelle, here’s the issue: either moral teaching is true not because of its content, but because of the authority that articulates it, or it is true because it demonstrably upholds, supports and articulates the good. If the former, the good is arbitrary, based on what someone says it is. If the latter, the good is believed to be objective and recognizable as such, and the moral teaching is authoritative because of it’s relationship to the good. If what the catechism says about homosexual relationships cannot be demonstrably observed as true, then it is true not because of the nature of the teaching, but because of the nature of the authority articulating that teaching.

I would argue that the Roman Catholic Church would maintain that what it teaches is authoritative and true because it best articulates the good, and the authority with which the teaching is articulated is derived from the objective goodness of the teaching. The argument that I’m hearing in this thread and others like it does not reflect this understanding because it denies that the goodness of the teaching is actually demonstrable. The argument amounts, therefore, to an appeal to authority, not an appeal to the moral good. This is what is frustrating to me.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Untill the church changes its teachings you have to submit to the Authority of church teachings. Even if in reality some of the teachings are ‘‘WRONG’’
The church once taught that the earth was flat. To say the earth was round was heresy.

 

[sophiasmith941]

I think your friends can change his orientation.It may take time but he can live normal life like others…

Regards
Sophia Smith
online pharmacy

 

[Elizabeth502]

do you know how we can tell whether or not the romantic relationship is virtuous or debauched? we can tell a tree by its fruit. What fruit does the relationship produce? Does it produce love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control? …

No. That is not how Catholic moral theology works, because it is based on what is intrinsically true. The extrinsic features of an intrinsically immoral lifestyle or behavior of any kind – not by any means limited to homosexual activity – do not modify, let alone sanctify, the instrinsic quality of the reprehensible activity. Otherwise, no matter how convinced the person is (or friends of such person) that the so-called “fruits” are the radical sign of the intrinsic “goodness” of the activity, such judgments are subjective, first of all, and second of all, the intrinsic quality of the relationship is still not affected. Why? Because Catholic theology is based on absolutes – not arbitrariness but absolutes. If something is intrinsically evil or disordered (whatever that “something” is), it is always so, not sometimes so. And that quality cannot be erased, modified, transformed by human “correction” or by declaration of exception.
(Murder is always wrong except in this case…homosexuality is always wrong except if two people demonstrate agape love for each other, which is apparent to their community…fornication is always wrong except if what results is a stable quasi-family unit for a couple of out-of-wedlock children that were produced…adultery is always wrong except if the husband has been brutalizing his wife, and the illicit relationship is virtue-producing for the adulterating couple and protective of the brutalized wife…stealing is always wrong except if evil, corrupt people are being robbed so that scripturally righteous results for the poor are being achieved…A married men using pornography is not “hurting” anyone; he is still obviously kind & loving to his wife, and they continue to enjoy a satisfying sexual relationship (the “external signs” – the “fruit” )

So there are several false premises involved:

*~The Ends Justifying the Means (even if somehow it could be “proved” that supposedly “objectively speaking” the ends are being achieved)

~Moral Absolutes are not outside myself, but are whatever I say they are

~Moral Absolutes are verified or constructed from merely experience

~What is extrinsic (subjectively or objectively) is the measure of good and evil, as opposed to what is intrinsic.

~(And as Michelle said), The Effect proves the Cause*.

This is all related to the structure of Catholic theology, which is not only built on all the elements of morality which other religions also use (Scripture; their own sacred traditions from their inherited body of work – their Deposit of Faith; their philosophical framework, if they have one – a framework which provides a cohesion, uniity, consistency for a moral “system” which can be applied to any question of morality).

I’m not, by the way, insisting that Roman Catholicism accept a worldview apart from its very own.

Yes you are. And I have just enumerated how you are. You don’t agree with any of its principles. And without principles – a systematic way of evaluating behavior – then all of morality is relative and changeable.

“Despite the evidence of virtue, there is no goodness at work here–I deny the work of the Spirit here.”

As several of us here have said, neither the Church nor the person of God Himself is incapable of recognizing goodness, but goodness in other manifestations does not transform an intrinsically unacceptable act into a holy one. Intrinsic, naturally, refers to what is essential, primary, fixed. It is what does not change, cannot change. A person may be a great friend in terms of generosity of self, but he may be helping himself to his friend’s possessions, or sleeping with his friend’s girlfriend or wife; despite that, on the surface, the two friends share a fabulous relationship, with all the fruits and gifts of the Spirit – except that it’s poisoned to the core, given that one friend is violating the friendship by invading the other friend in intrinsically evil ways. And as I said on a previous thread many months ago, homosexual activity also invades the boundaries of true and holy friendship in intrinsically evil ways which violates the order of creation. The rest of the friendship may be ennobling, but that part is not, and no amount of virtue can change that moral reality.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Untill the church changes its teachings you have to submit to the Authority of church teachings. Even if in reality some of the teachings are ‘‘WRONG’’
The church once taught that the earth was flat. To say the earth was round was heresy.

Official Church teaching is promised the charism of infallibility. The teaching of a ‘flat earth’ was never infallibly taught ex cathedra or by the magisterium.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Neither could I. Which is why I say that sexual orientation is immutable. I agree with what Hadrianus said in post #46.

Wrong.
Sexual orientation is not immutable. You are born heteresexual. Education may change it.
If it is immutable, where is in the genes, the gene of homosexuality?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

…CONTINUED AND COMPLETED]

!

Throwing myself into the arena.
I do not think that the end justity the means.
If there is a good fruit, then there is a good tree.
the metaphor has got some shorcomings.
No means that go agaisnt God’s law my bear good fruit.
And the rules to judge a good fruit and Godly not humanly.
That it is: in the supermarket we find beautiful apples, colorfoul, but it is rubbish, only hormones,water and addictives. And you find organic apples, ugly as hell but tasty and full of nutrition.
An homo relationship is better than a couple who kills each other. But it is not according to God’s Law.

To judge it for the fruits it produces (and your criteris is part of the story) is wrong.

GBY

 

[shaky]

Official Church teaching is promised the charism of infallibility. The teaching of a ‘flat earth’ was never infallibly taught ex cathedra or by the magisterium.

Well it was something i heard! I have checked Properly and you are right:thumbsup:
What about the Issue with Galileo. The catholics taught the earth was the centre of the universe. But in reality the Sun is!