I need help with something

[InSearchofGrace]

…the flaw in your own argument is you are comparing an action with a potential action. You can not categorize and aim to treat someone for something they may or may not do. **You as a Catholic believe homosexual tendency needs help, the Catholic Church and some Catholics like me don’t agree with you. They need help if they act on that attraction, not simply because they have it. **

Strangely if you take your hard line position of trying to get me to use the word disorder for anything subjectively wrong and not a sin out of the equation, we are actually not far apart in our opinions.

This post of yours directed to rom422 really needs a clear rebuttal, so let me provide you the pertinent language from the CDF Letter to the Bishops on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (the link I also provided upthread) in contradiction to your assertion:

…
3. …
At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

*In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.*
…
17. …
In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.

Notice that the Church does not regard homosexual inclination or the condition neutral or good and that they are seen as objectively disordered.

Notice that the Church is directing the attention of the bishops to the care of those with the homosexual condition and tendency, so that they do not think that living out of this orientation is acceptable.

Notice too the mention the help of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences being in full accord with the teaching of the Church.

For you to claim that the Church agrees with you that those with homosexual tendency are not to be helped, only those who act on the attraction is astounding!

Previous to this, you stated that the Church acknowledges there is no psychological cause for homosexuality when what she has stated is that its psychogenesis is largely unexplained.

You are taking liberties with inserting justification for your position from Church language where there is none.
,

 

[essie7777]

… sniped not just for space but complete lack of accurate representation of my position!

Notice again (taken the sarcasm from your reply as its mildly entertaining!) each of your points completely misrepresent what i have stated. The discussion is whether homosexuality is a diagnoisable mental health disease/disorder … still not seeing that in Church teachings anywhere.

But, please, continue to ignore what i say and twist and manipulate for your benefit. I am more than comfortable to stand by what i have said, as if people read it it is more than clear.

I do notice with alarming regularity you choose to ignore what you clearly can not defend from you position.

The glaring one would be the Church not referring to people as homosexual or heterosexual as this is out of context to the care of the human person …i even highlighted it in red for you…point 16 i think of the same document you refer to her again.

For you to claim that the Church agrees with you that those with homosexual tendency are not to be helped, only those who act on the attraction is astounding!

Never stated, have simply stated that homosexuality without an action is not a mental health disorder that has diagnostic criteria… nice attempt though.

You are pushing the boundaries of being able to claim what you state is simply your interpretation of my position to getting very close to outright lying about what i have said.

Previous to this, you stated that the Church acknowledges there is no psychological cause for homosexuality when what she has stated is that its psychogenesis is largely unexplained.

Actually what i stated was there is no psychological genesis explaining homosexuality --this is further supported by NO research that can identify a biological, DNA, etc etc. cause of homosexuality that is distinct from heterosexuality, hence it is not a psychpathological maladjusted mental health disease. I even went further to state when there is evidence of such, then claim and define it as a psychological mental disease.

Ahh nothing like misquote and misapplied interpretation – you chose to take one part of that comment and latch onto to with such fervor. i have continuously pointed your error, and clarified my total context of what i stated… as above …again

You are taking liberties with inserting justification for your position from Church language where there is none.

You have a very bad habit of latching onto one or two words or one phrase and then “running” with your attack on it.

I did directly ask before you attack me for disagreeing with consider ALL the comments and the full picture they give from what i posted… strangely again you didn’t – i can’t help but wonder why?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You disagree, that doesn’t make your position right. I am as confident in my interpretation as you are. I also don’t presume to hold my position without questioning it with people i trust; my local parish priest, my diocese’s vocational priest(who is helping me with canon law issues in my profession) as well as the writings of the Vatican, USCCB and the CCC. I’m pretty sure that’s not hubris - which i am also sure you are aware is a word defined as having exaggerated pride and self confidence. You have again, disagreed by personally attacking.

Consider the following comments before you are so quick to decry my position as hubris, Please note i have purposely placed the quotes from the Congregation For the Doctrine of Faith first as this was the weightier document you felt i should refer to. Note there is the comment about how the Church by removing the labels homosexual and heterosexual as defining a person (i have highlighted that in red) offers a much needed context for the care of humans. This hardly suggests we identify and treat people by labels the Church decrees are not needed to care for the human person.

CONT
Some other documents on the difference between homosexuality and the act of sex … as well as how we should treat people who are homosexual:

It certainly looks as if there is plenty of Church teaching and direction that distinguishes between homosexuality and the acts of sex. In context as Catholics we are certainly encouraged as a British phrase says not “to throw stones in glass houses”, we all suffer some disordered tendency and we are all encouraged to not act with “discrimination that offend homosexual persons.”.

I’d suggest that in light of these works, the CCC and the underlying basis of Catholic teaching, that your posts and it’s content are not quite as charitable and loving as you suppose.

Hubris was in reference to your arguments. Your position. You yourself referred to it as such (see bolded).

I have made my case with my previous post.

The repetition of homosexuality v homosexual acts as if I don’t distinguish the meanings is unnecessary. Check via the search function how many threads on homosexuality there have been before you joined and I have participated in scores of them. The distinction has been covered ad nauseum.

I am not in disagreement at all with the portions you lifted from the Church documents.
,

 

[essie7777]

I have made my case with my previous post.

Actually you didn’t, but you did make me chuckle with your ‘continued behavior’ of ignoring that which doesn’t agree with your position. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away.

The repetition of homosexuality v homosexual acts as if I don’t distinguish the meanings is unnecessary.

You keep interchanging the words, which thus changes what you are saying … how is your inability to be clear suddenly a problem when its pointed out to you. You don’t hesitate to point out what you think is my inability to be clear. It seems you simply don’t like to be challenged.

Check via the search function how many threads on homosexuality there have been before you joined and I have participated in scores of them. The distinction has been covered ad nauseum.

Can i simply point out that you engaged me and challenged my position and point of view --your refusal to respond to anything that you have no valid response for does not get pushed away with a “well look it up yourself”.

The conversation is based on what we each have said in reference to each other’s position … your refusal to answer is just hiding …and i did look up your response all follow the same theme … first you point out your position, then when challenged you ignore, then accuse someone of being an activist (depending on thread depends on what type of activist) then you restate the same thing with still no answer to the challenges… then you rely on the whole its already been covered “ad nauseum”.

The end result you refuse to answer the valid challenges to your point of view and continue to ignore them. And you have the audacity to attack other posters (an i include me here) when at least they try and answer every point so they can’t be accused of ignoring anything!

I am not in disagreement at all with the portions you lifted from the Church documents.

Which begs the question then why do we disagree if you agree wit the Church documents in totality – not one at a time-- depending on what your are trying to justify?

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Notice:

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.