I agree on thesinfulness of homsexual behavior. But if same sex attraction is genetic, which is still heavily possible, then is it not God given? And how can anything from God be disordered. God does not create disorder.Whenever I hear people talk about examples of churches made then invaribly talk about Galileo and/or the Inquisition-neither of which has anything whatsoever to do the moral teachings of the Church. As has been mentioned the Galileo incident is much more complex than people would like to admit. Although the church did teach tha tthe earth was the a center of the universe they were not all that opposed to opposing theories. For instance Copenicus, who first advanced the heliocentric theory of the universe, was a Catholic priest. He published his papers with no problems from the church whatsoever. Galileo had written a paper supporting the heliocentric theory . 20 years before his trial an not only not been chastised but had received an award for his paper. The paper that got him in trouble was issued with the full support of the church , the only caveat being that he had to present both sides of the issue. He presented the theory that the Earth is a center of the universe through their rantings of a character he called Simplitico, a character whose description appeared to be describing the Pope.
As far as this thread goes we need to note that the church has no stance whatsoever as to whether same-sex attraction is genetic or not. The church says that homosexual behavior is a grievous sin regardless. That is why I’m always asking what relevance the allegation that church made scientific mistakes in the past has to do with homosexual behavior being sinful/
Truth is not a theory. Truth is a person.Of course humans are weak but the Truth lies in its embodiment, not its theory.
It is faithful to tell the truth. It is not faithful to call sin good.You’re settling with your theory which does not exhibit faith towards the Other. Christian praxis should be about the Other.
I’ve watched the arguments for a while now. They really don’t get to the point. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic is really kind of irrelavant. It’s simply an argument that goes on to avoid the issue of morality. All sexual sin could said to be genetic if you carry the argument far enough. It’s not the issue. It may be a matter of human interest, but the fact is, however we’re born. Whether we have a genetic pre-disposition to SSA, or a genetic pre-disposition to pedophilia, or beastiality, fornication, masturbation, adultery, etc. The moral fact is that sexual activity is reserved in natural law and morality, as well as the laws of God to union between a man and a woman who are married to on another. It’s really that simple. Keeping ourselves in a chaste state, if we are not called to the vocation of heterosexual marriage may be a more difficult task for some that others because of their pre-dispositions, environmental upbringing, genetic makeup, etc., but it doesn’t change the law written on the heart of man. It is what it is. We shouldn’t hate one another over it. We should care very much what our brothers and sisters are feeling, and the crosses we each must face in our own sexual matters. We should help each other in any way we can. But to go beyond tolerance, and empathy, to the point where we’re virtually condoning sin, and normalizing it, is not the correct approach. And genetics is not the correct argument of justification. We can’t be forgiven and helped with sin until we admit that we are sinning, and are in fact in need of forgiveness. The genetics argument seems to be seeking an easier path, and is a building block for removing the notion of sin from yet another known sexual disorder. We’re really not that far away, if we keep heading down this path from normalizing much deeper disordered sin.Is being gay genetic? Folks, that is what gay activitists and leftist scientists are trying to have us believed. They are poisoning the mind of young folks. If they got the general public acceptance, then they can easily push their agenda i.e. same sex marriage, etc. I don’t think it is genetic, but a lifestyle. It takes two (man and woman) to variate genes and produce offspring. If gay people are genetically gay, they, as a subspecies, would die out thousand of years ago. They can’t reproduce themselves. Because they can’t reproduce, evolution has taken over. And they all die out. That is the reality of evolution if we believe in it. Am I right?
MugenOne
The Church will NEVER apologize for being against intrinsic evil. It has no power to do so.Making someone believe that the Earth was in the centre on the Universe without any scientific proof is a matter of faith.
And while speaking of homosexuality as seen wrong by the Church, I always refer to homosexual behaviour, not homosexual tendencies.
Actually when Copernicus published his papers it was the scientific community that railed against him.Whenever I hear people talk about examples of churches made then invaribly talk about Galileo and/or the Inquisition-neither of which has anything whatsoever to do the moral teachings of the Church. As has been mentioned the Galileo incident is much more complex than people would like to admit. Although the church did teach tha tthe earth was the a center of the universe they were not all that opposed to opposing theories. For instance Copenicus, who first advanced the heliocentric theory of the universe, was a Catholic priest. He published his papers with no problems from the church whatsoever. Galileo had written a paper supporting the heliocentric theory . 20 years before his trial an not only not been chastised but had received an award for his paper. The paper that got him in trouble was issued with the full support of the church , the only caveat being that he had to present both sides of the issue. He presented the theory that the Earth is a center of the universe through their rantings of a character he called Simplitico, a character whose description appeared to be describing the Pope.
As far as this thread goes we need to note that the church has no stance whatsoever as to whether same-sex attraction is genetic or not. The church says that homosexual behavior is a grievous sin regardless. That is why I’m always asking what relevance the allegation that church made scientific mistakes in the past has to do with homosexual behavior being sinful/
I’m saying that if what you consider to be the moral law is not faithful towards the Other, it’s a pretty good indication you might need to do some reconsidering of what you understand the “truth” to be. You say the “truth” is a person but I believe you concern yourself with moral law (at least in this case) over that person’s teaching. Again, I am not a Catholic so I do not view the Church in the same way that you do.Truth is not a theory. Truth is a person.
It is faithful to tell the truth. It is not faithful to call sin good.
There is no inconsistency with Church teaching.
Your point seems to be if some person wants to violate the moral law then it is* faithful* to say such actions are good.
It is illogical and frankly no service to that person or the truth.
Not to derail this thread - check out the Galileo threads. You will find that mathematically neither can be proven. NASA used a stationary earth in its calculations. Why? Because they are simpler and they work.No, it was wrong about something concerning Faith. The Church thought, based on the Bible and not on scientific evidence, that the Earth was in the centre of the Universe. Everyone who refused to believe that was treated as a heretic.
So it wasn’t a matter of science but a matter of faith on with the church was wrong.
Where did the magisterium teach this?No, it was wrong about something concerning Faith. The Church thought, based on the Bible and not on scientific evidence, that the Earth was in the centre of the Universe. Everyone who refused to believe that was treated as a heretic.
So it wasn’t a matter of science but a matter of faith on with the church was wrong.
That is it in a nutshell. To see it you must get intimate with it.I Again, I am not a Catholic so I do not view the Church in the same way that you do.
What do you mean by “faithful” in this context?I’m saying that if what you consider to be the moral law is not faithful towards the Other, it’s a pretty good indication you might need to do some reconsidering of what you understand the “truth” to be.
The law cannot be separated from the Person of Christ.You say the “truth” is a person but I believe you concern yourself with moral law (at least in this case) over that person’s teaching. Again, I am not a Catholic so I do not view the Church in the same way that you do.
That is it in a nutshell. To hear outsiders you must learn how to listen to them without writing them off.That is it in a nutshell. To see it you must get intimate with it.
By “faithful,” I meant that it must respect and love them just as Jesus himself did. That means, among many other things, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. And that, in turn, means the rights that are extended to you for a loving, healthy relationship in the context of marriage should be extended to them as well.What do you mean by “faithful” in this context?
The law cannot be separated from the Person of Christ.
Most do not have knowledge of real history, don’t know theology or philosophy. You cannot see the truth looking through a tube with a filter on it. So much is missed.That is it in a nutshell. To hear outsiders you must learn how to listen to them without writing them off.
I know history and philosophy pretty well and have two master’s degrees in theology. The best lesson I learned in graduate school is that I know quite little. There’s something to be said about God and truth and mystery. We don’t have a monopoly on it. Neither does the Church. I’m off to lunch…Most do not have knowledge of real history, don’t know theology or philosophy. You cannot see the truth looking through a tube with a filter on it. So much is missed.
Good then you should know full well exactly who does have a monopoly on truth.I know history and philosophy pretty well and have two master’s degrees in theology. The best lesson I learned in graduate school is that I know quite little. There’s something to be said about God and truth and mystery. We don’t have a monopoly on it. Neither does the Church. I’m off to lunch…
Love as in wanting their eternal salvation. Jesus never condoned sin.By “faithful,” I meant that it must respect and love them just as Jesus himself did. That means, among many other things, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. And that, in turn, means the rights that are extended to you for a loving, healthy relationship in the context of marriage should be extended to them as well.
How can it be separate when He is Truth?The law can be separated from Christ from my opinion and too often has been.
For the sake of argument lets accept you premise. Does this mean that i am not bound to folow Church teachings concerning the sinfullness of racism? Can I ignore their admonition to care for the poor? To treat kindly the immigrant? After all per you logic she might be wrong about all of these.Yes, First let’s admit that the church WAS wrong about the fact that the earth was in the centre of the Universe.
This is a case when the church WAS wrong about something concerning faith and morals. How’s that for infallibility?
So, if the church was wrong before, she may still be wrong today about certain morality issues. So she might be wrong about homosexuality.
Of course not. The vast majority of the church’s teachings are true. Nut there are some who aren’t. Here, in our mortal life we can never know for certainty which are and which aren’t. But based on what the Bible teaches, based on social science and on natural science and accepting the guidance of the Holy Spirit we can make an idea. Only God is who really knows right and wrong.For the sake of argument lets accept you premise. Does this mean that i am not bound to folow Church teachings concerning the sinfullness of racism? Can I ignore their admonition to care for the poor? To treat kindly the immigrant? After all per you logic she might be wrong about all of these.
Maybe something is wrong with my logic but:
So, hasn’t the church changed it’s views on an issue of faith and morality, admitting that the previous view was wrong?
- The Church stated in the middle ages that the sun was in the centre of the Universe.
- (1) is a matter of faith and morals
- Through the 1616 act, the Church condemned Galileo for stating otherwise
- The Church has today changed its views (i.e doesn’t believe that the earth is in the centre of the Universe)
So why might homosexua behavior be one of them but racsim, and caring for the poor and immigrant not?Of course not. The vast majority of the church’s teachings are true. Nut there are some who aren’t. Here, in our mortal life we can never know for certainty which are and which aren’t. But based on what the Bible teaches, based on social science and on natural science and accepting the guidance of the Holy Spirit we can make an idea. Only God is who really knows right and wrong.
With Galileo, I just tried to prove that the Church was wrong in the past and she admitted that. But she may still be wrong today concerning some issues and homosexual behaviour may be among them.