Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[Corpus_Cristi]

undignified behaviour is behaviour unfitting the dignity one has been given

Also a fantastic answer.

 

[John21652]

undignified behaviour is behaviour unfitting the dignity one has been given

That’s not a bad response at all.
However…
What happens to the dignity one has been given when the undignified behaviour is constantly part of one’s behaviour?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

That’s not a bad response at all.
However…
What happens to the dignity one has been given when the undignified behaviour is constantly part of one’s behaviour?

It gets buried under the muck and filth of one’s actions, it never disappears, but it can become very hard for others to see it in the person. Once one repents one starts to clean away the filth and grime allowing others to start to see your value as a human being again.

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

That’s not a bad response at all.
However…
What happens to the dignity one has been given when the undignified behaviour is constantly part of one’s behaviour?

If the indignity of a behavior is contingent on the dignity the person in the first place, what can “happen to the dignity”? If anything denegrates the dignity to the point of non-existence, the indignity is, in itself, non-existent.

God bless,

Rob

 

[John21652]

In the fact that said person was known and loved by God from the foundation of the world, was made in the image and likeness of God, and is called to take on His nature.

…and hence, the inherent dignity of the person. Not much argument there.

Nothing that anyone does can ever take away from those facts.

This is the point of contention. As I asked of Dakota, what happens to that inherent dignity when one’s behaviour is constantly undignified? Especially in light of the foundation of dignity described by you in your opening sentence!

They comprise a fundamental premise of Christianity. It’s been the teaching of the Church from her founding.

I think you need to differentiate Christianity from the Church. Christianity now has many faces and a whole lot of those ‘faces’ preach different messages, do they not? I am arguing from the perspective of Catholicism, which is the very font of all of Christianity and where the correct Christian principles are to be found. I don’t think you’d disagree with me on that, surely.

The dignity of the human person remains in tact no matter what anyone does or says.

If that were true, then no behaviour can be called undignified and the edict we sometimes give to people, that of “preserve your dignity”, is meaningless.

That’s one of the reasons serial mass murderers are not ipso facto deserving of death. In fact, no one deserves death for heinous crimes (I’m using this as an example to prove my point).

This point is arguable, but is a whole nother issue. However, I will ask, is the person being executed being stripped of his dignity? After all, we often hear how some people died an undignified death.

The Church teaches that in the case of protecting innocent life, the measure of taking the life of a guilty party is permissable as it is needed to defend innocent life.

proportionality - yeah we know this, but it has little to do with this argument, except…wait for it - except if you think an unjustified death is actually the taking away of a person’s dignity!?

That’s the dignity God has bestowed on us as human beings, to the point of not deserving to die after killing innocents.

Following on from the previous point, the innocents have had their dignity transgressed. No? So, has not the transgressor not sacrificed his dignity with an undignified act? Society will either kill him, or lock him away for an awfully long time. In other words, it will strip him of his dignity.

How much more dignified is the active homosexual who hasn’t killed anyone?

You are now comparing apples with oranges, which wont work. Suffice to ask, how does the continued undignified behaviour of the homosexual add, or subtract from, his dignity?

Modern Catholics get so caught up in sins that are taboo, sometimes to the point of ascribing too much gravity to them.

Are you here dissenting from the Catholic Church, which describes homosexuality as a grave disorder? C’mon, fess up…

I’m pretty sure your idea of extremely grave matter is quite different than say, that of a woman living in communist China who was just forced to have an abortion, or a young girl sold into sexual slavery in a third world African nation run by thugs, or even a young man in North Korea.

This is where your argument goes right off the rails. You are giving examples where people have had their free will impinged upon. They have no choice. homosexuals, like the rest of us, can choose how to behave.

I’m not trying to say that participating in homosexual acts is a good thing, even a good thing compared to doing something else.

Are you saying it’s a bad thing?

I’m just saying there are worse things, and it isn’t very becoming of someone to place so much gravity on something as relatively tame as deviant sexual practices.

The Church describes homosexuality as a grave disorder. Are you saying otherwise?

The world is a big scary place, John.

Not for me it isn’t!

There are greater affronts to the dignity of the human person (which you seem to believe is contingent on their lack of sinfulness) than gay sex.

So what’s an “affront to the human person” exactly, if not a diminishing of the person’s dignity? You are here at least admitting that homosexuality is an affront, but that there are worse affronts. Dunno. Grave is grave after all. However, I must ask, what are you going to say to God as a homosexual is cast into hell? “Hey God, you can’t do that. It’s an affront to the human person. It’s undignified”!

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

This is the point of contention. As I asked of Dakota, what happens to that inherent dignity when one’s behaviour is constantly undignified? Especially in light of the foundation of dignity described by you in your opening sentence!

My previous reply exlains that.

** I think you need to differentiate Christianity from the Church**. Christianity now has many faces and a whole lot of those ‘faces’ preach different messages, do they not? I am arguing from the perspective of Catholicism, which is the very font of all of Christianity and where the correct Christian principles are to be found. I don’t think you’d disagree with me on that, surely.

Oh, that’s what you think? Nothing I said had to do with Protestantism. Christianity is fully encapsulated within Catholicism, no? What does Protestantism inherently have to do with what I said? Absolutely nothing. Before Protestantism existed, would not Catholicism and Christianity be one and the same? Are they not so now? Protestantism doesn’t detract from the fullness of Christianity that existed before it. Since I didn’t bring it up, I don’t see why you brought
it up (unless you, say, I don’t know, presumed I meant something that I didn’t), so I see no reason to make a distinction.

If that were true, then no behaviour can be called undignified and the edict we sometimes give to people, that of “preserve your dignity”, is meaningless.

If any “edict we sometimes give to people” concerning the preservation of their dignity were meaningless, that “edict” would most likely refer to dignity of a social, subjective nature that can only be perceived exteriorly (how one dresses, grooms him/herself, acts, etc.) and not the intrinsic dignity that God infused into the human person. We’re talking about two different things at this point.

This point is arguable, but is a whole nother issue. However, I will ask, is the person being executed being stripped of his dignity? After all, we often hear how some people died an undignified death.

Again, dignity of a different nature. The way you’re using the word with reference to the manner in which one died (subjective, perceived exteriorly, on the surface, and not even referring to the person who died but to the death that they died) and the way the Church refers to the intrinsic dignity of the human person are two different things.

proportionality - yeah we know this, but it has little to do with this argument, except…wait for it - except if you think an unjustified death is actually the taking away of a person’s dignity!?

Ibidum, aka read above.

Following on from the previous point, the innocents have had their dignity transgressed. No? So, has not the transgressor not sacrificed his dignity with an undignified act? Society will either kill him, or lock him away for an awfully long time. In other words, it will strip him of his dignity.

Again, different sense of human dignity than the theological one.

You are now comparing apples with oranges, which wont work. Suffice to ask, how does the continued undignified behaviour of the homosexual add, or subtract from, his dignity?

I’ve answered this above and no, it’s not a comparison of apples to oranges. Sin is sin. Relative gravity of sin is, well, relative and debatable. Even if you try to convince me that one sin is more grave than the other, in theory you would be correct, however, the nature of grave sin doesn’t change when the sins themselves are different. Is this what you’re trying to argue?

Are you here dissenting from the Catholic Church, which describes homosexuality as a grave disorder? C’mon, fess up…

YOU’RE FUNNY!!

:l

I’ve made it very clear in my explanations that I don’t so…why go there?

This is where your argument goes right off the rails. You are giving examples where people have had their free will impinged upon. They have no choice. homosexuals, like the rest of us, can choose how to behave.

I apologize, I wasn’t clear enough in making my point.

Referencing these affronts to human dignity was not calling into question the grave acts of the oppressed. It was calling into question the grave acts of the oppressors. The Chinese woman didn’t give herself an abortion. The African girl didn’t voluntarily enter sexual servitude. The young North Korean man is not hiding underground from a regime that wants to silence him. These are all examples of grave matter being perpetrated by someone else. I was calling their unspeakable crimes into question. I’ sure that clears things up.

Are you saying it’s a bad thing?

Have you read anything I’ve written? If I’ve maintained so far that homosexual acts are sinful, can you figure out the answer to your own question?

It really doesn’t behoove me or my position to answer anymore of this, as you made no point that was different than the ones you made previously. I feel like you talked past me the entire time. I honestly feel that it behooves you, however to read posts more carefully and to brush up on the true position of the Church regarding the human person.

God bless,

Rob

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

It also bears mentioning that the phrase you used to discribe attraction to one’s own sex, “gravely disordered” does not make any sense and, moreover, is not the language or the position of the Church.

CCC 2357 describes homosexual acts as acts of “grave depravity”. The same then describes the acts as “intrinsically (by their very nature) disordered”. CCC 2358 describes the “homosexual inclination” as “objectively (truly) disordered”.

Gravity, theologically speaking, only refers to sin (ie. homosexual activity). You’re making things up.

 

[John21652]

My previous reply exlains that.

Far from it. Which is why I asked again. The dignity described by you in your opening sentence in post #39 is given by God. Correct? My query to you was *"…what happens to that inherent dignity when one’s behaviour is constantly undignified? Especially in light of the foundation of dignity described by you in your opening sentence!" * You got nowhere near answering that question. In fact, I’ll demonstrate right at the end of this post that you couldn’t answer that question and avoided trying to do so.

… Protestantism doesn’t detract from the fullness of Christianity that existed before it. Since I didn’t bring it up, I don’t see why you brought
it up …

I mentioned the difference because in one sentence you mentioned both Christianity and Catholicism. Indeed, Catholicism is Christianity. However, a lot of so called Christian denominations have drifted from Catholicism greatlly and, consequently, from the bases of Christianity. Many Christian denominations and their followers admit what the Catholic Church does not. Agreed? Good.

If any “edict we sometimes give to people” concerning the preservation of their dignity were meaningless, that “edict” would most likely refer to dignity of a social, subjective nature that can only be perceived exteriorly (how one dresses, grooms him/herself, acts, etc.) and not the intrinsic dignity that God infused into the human person. We’re talking about two different things at this point.

Your propensity to surmise is given away by your use of the phrase “…most likely…”.Could it be the case that some consistently carried out behaviours of people would give us a clear indication that their ‘inherent’ dignity is being affronted, to paraphrase you?

Again, dignity of a different nature.
…
Again, different sense of human dignity than the theological one.

And this is exactly where you are missing my point. Your argument is implicitly saying that no matter what the person does, there inherent, God given dignity, which you say is theological and different from the temporal idea of dignity, cannot be removed, or destroyed. When I mention “affronts to dignity” you distinguish them from a theological definition of dignity and say one doesn’t harm the other. I say that’s wrong.

I’ve answered this above and no, it’s not a comparison of apples to oranges. Sin is sin. Relative gravity of sin is, well, relative and debatable…

Now you are confused. I said you were comparing apples with oranges when you compared people with no choice to people who have choice.

As for the relativity of sin, you seem to be forgetting that the Church classifies sin into Mortal and Venial, so there are indeed degrees of sin, and wrongness, and culpability. Yet you say it’s ‘debatable’. C’mon, fess up now.
…

I’ve made it very clear in my explanations that I don’t so…why go there?

I went “there”, which was asking if you dissent from the Church, because you wrote this - *“I’m just saying there are worse things, and it isn’t very becoming of someone to place so much gravity on something as relatively tame as deviant sexual practices.”*In post #47, you quoted the Catechism as using the adjectives “grave” and “grave depravity” in relation to homosexual acts. Yet here you pass them off as “…relatively tame.…”. It would seem that my question regarding whether or not you dissent from the Church was a sound one. Like In said, fess up.

I apologize, I wasn’t clear enough in making my point.

Yes you were. Your point ignored the difference between free choice and no choice.
…

Have you read anything I’ve written? If I’ve maintained so far that homosexual acts are sinful, can you figure out the answer to your own question?

Again, you called them “…relatively tame…”.

It really doesn’t behoove me or my position to answer anymore of this, as you made no point that was different than the ones you made previously. I feel like you talked past me the entire time. I honestly feel that it behooves you, however to read posts more carefully and to brush up on the true position of the Church regarding the human person.

God bless,

Rob

And right here you signed off, failing to answer the one single question that put to bed once and for all your theory that undignified acts do not destroy the inherent dignity of a person. Why is it that God throws sinners into hell? And when he does, will you ask Him why he isn’t respecting the “inherent” dignity of the person? His answer must, logically, be something along the lines of “…because it isn’t there any longer.”

 

[John21652]

It also bears mentioning that the phrase you used to discribe attraction to one’s own sex, “gravely disordered” does not make any sense and, moreover, is not the language or the position of the Church.

CCC 2357 describes homosexual acts as acts of “grave depravity”. The same then describes the acts as “intrinsically (by their very nature) disordered”. CCC 2358 describes the “homosexual inclination” as “objectively (truly) disordered”.

Gravity, theologically speaking, only refers to sin (ie. homosexual activity). You’re making things up.

Now now Rob.

You are being very naughty.

My posts kept referring to “homosexual acts”, not homosexual attractions. After all, how many times did I ask you about acts that would strip away the dignity of a person? Yet here, in order to score a point you have made it appear that I was writing about “…attraction to one’s own sex…”. Homosexual acts, by definition, occur when someone acts on their attractions. Correct? So, in writing about homosexual acts there was no need for me to discuss homosexual attractions.

Don’t feel obligated to apologise. I’m sweet.

However, in light of that part of the Catechism you quoted here and in light of the fact that you described deviant sex acts as “….relatively tame.…”, I do think you need to tighten up your thinking somehwhat. You are at odds with the Catechism…

 

[AndyP2010]

I have a friend who is kinda paranoid about himself. He said he’s a heterosexual, but has this inside feeling toward another guy. He thinks it might be romance; he claims that he has a special love and care for him. He’s not “turned on” by the other guy (there’s nothing sexual), but still has this breath-taking affection toward him.

You know what I mean. He’s not lusting, however, and he wouldn’t want a relationship nor would he even want a kiss or holding-hands session.

One I am going to assume that your friend is telling you the truth about the attraction not being sexual and you should assume that as well. Once your over that hurdle than everything is easy or should be. You see that kind of love is the way God meant us to feel about each other and how those of us who are lucky enough to get to heaven will feel that way toward everyone. Your friend should focus on the good of the other at which point this is agape. Then he shouldn’t be surprised it this feeling spreads to others both male and female. Two cautions your friends friend may not return these feelings and so he has to deal with rejection. The other more important is the issue of paranoia about himself. The kind of love your friend may be feeling is something the devil hates. He will try to corrupt it if he can. He will use your friends paranoia to convince him that he is different that his feelings are unnatural. That said learning how to truly love others to see what is good and attractive in others is for a guy, the beginning of true manhood.

 

[GreatestOfThese]

Hey guys, mind if I throw my two cents in?

My query to you was *"…what happens to that inherent dignity when one’s behaviour is constantly undignified? Especially in light of the foundation of dignity described by you in your opening sentence!" *

Nothing. Nothing happens to that dignity because it is inherent and God-given. But it should still be respected, as the Catechism instructs.

Your propensity to surmise is given away by your use of the phrase “…most likely…”.Could it be the case that some consistently carried out behaviours of people would give us a clear indication that their ‘inherent’ dignity is being affronted, to paraphrase you?

No, I think his “propensity to surmise” is altogether appropriate, given that you’re talking about an “edict we sometimes give to people”. Such a thing is probably, most likely, subjective, and not the inherent dignity CorpusChristi is referring to.

As for the relativity of sin, you seem to be forgetting that the Church classifies sin into Mortal and Venial, so there are indeed degrees of sin, and wrongness, and culpability. Yet you say it’s ‘debatable’. C’mon, fess up now.

Yes, sin is classified into Mortal and Venial, but surely you don’t mean to say that one Venial sin is equal to another. A boy who steals a cookie from a cookie jar and a boy who steals ten cookies have both committed Venial sins, but clearly the latter has been more sinful. I make this clear distinction to show that yes, there is relativity in sin (beyond the classification into Mortal and Venial). But what if, say, one boy stole a pen and the other a pencil? Both are Venial, but which is worse? A trivial example, maybe, but wouldn’t you say the question is open for debate?

In post #47, you quoted the Catechism as using the adjectives “grave” and “grave depravity” in relation to homosexual acts. Yet here you pass them off as “…relatively tame.…”. It would seem that my question regarding whether or not you dissent from the Church was a sound one. Like In said, fess up.

What exactly does CorpusChristi need to fess up to? I see nothing wrong with the assertion that a “grave depravity” can still be “relatively tame” when compared to, say, serial murder.

And right here you signed off, failing to answer the one single question that put to bed once and for all your theory that undignified acts do not destroy the inherent dignity of a person. Why is it that God throws sinners into hell? And when he does, will you ask Him why he isn’t respecting the “inherent” dignity of the person? His answer must, logically, be something along the lines of “…because it isn’t there any longer.”

I can’t imagine God saying anything of the sort. I was under the impression that God doesn’t send anyone to Hell; that if there are souls in Hell, they have put themselves there, and they have done so by sinning, i.e., disrespecting their own dignity (which, by the way, is still very much intact).

 

[Eugenius]

Are you trying to ask a leading question? Aren’t you capable of pointing out where you think someone is differeing from the Church. There are lots of documents “quoted above”.

As to my post above, I was referring to those who commit the homosexual acts. The wording of my post makes that rather obvious. So you tell me, how is it dignified to commit homosexual acts?

It is a simple question. The Vatican document in post # 31 implies there is intrinsic dignity in each person. In post # 33 you claim that there isn’t. It sounds like you are disagreeing and I asked you to clarify your response.

 

[NeedImprovement]

It might be interesting to see what would happen if everyone were to present their version/definition of this *intrinsic dignity *of the human person on this thread . Then we might not be arguing in circles any more .

If homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” , then I don’t see how they can be compatible with intrinsic dignity of the human person. There will be a conflict between the two.

---

Downplaying the seriousness of sin is a treacherous game to play , particularly as it pertains to formation of one’s conscience. In my opinion , it indicates a lack of acknowledgement of the consequences our personal sins have on the entire Church and the whole of society. Personally , I would much rather err on the side of caution when judging my own acts.

Diluting the seriousness of sins in the sexual order through moral relativity or by any other means, goes against Church teaching.

:sad_yes:

 

[John21652]

It is a simple question. The Vatican document in post # 31 implies there is intrinsic dignity in each person. In post # 33 you claim that there isn’t. It sounds like you are disagreeing and I asked you to clarify your response.

Let’s reproduce the posts here, so there can be no misunderstanding.

In post #31 NeedImprovement posted a quote from the Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexuals and the quote was repeated by me in post #33. It is this -

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

You say the Church is implying that there is indeed intrinsic dignity in each person. I’d say it was more than a mere implication, being so obvious that the Church writes of intrinsic dignity as a given aspect of the human person.

However, you then unequivocally state that in post #33 that I claim there isn’t! Well, let’s bring my post #33 to this page and see what I said -

Surely, if anything, homosexual behaviour attacks and erodes the intrinsic dignity of the individual. How can the dignity of an individual be preserved when their behaviour is so disordered? Anyone who immerses themselves into this so called “gay culture” is sacrificing that intrinsic dignity. That, to me, is the bottom line in this entire argument.

Well, there it is in all its glory! Can you see anything in that post that even suggests that I think there is no intrinsic dignity in a person? I actually ask if certain behaviour “…attack and erodes the intrinsic dignity of the individual.” Something can’t be “attacked and eroded” if it doesn’t exist.

Quite frankly, I’m rather amazed that you needed to have explained to you something so obvious.

 

[John21652]

…

If homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” , then I don’t see how they can be compatible with intrinsic dignity of the human person. There will be a conflict between the two.

---

:sad_yes:

NeedImprovement, you brilliantly nailed it in two sentences! :tiphat:

How can the intrinsic dignity of a person be preserved if intinsically disordered acts are habitual?

That’s like suggesting that A can exist in the same space as B.

It is logically impossible.

 

[NeedImprovement]

There is an in depth article on Pope John Paul II’s take on the dignity of the human being written by John J. Coughlin ; ; Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 27, 2003 ,
at the following link : Pope John Paul II And the Dignity of the Human Being .

Unfortunately , we don’t get to read the entire article without subscribing , but there is more than enough presented there to demonstrate just how intricate his view of human dignity is …

 

[NeedImprovement]

NeedImprovement, you brilliantly nailed it in two sentences! :tiphat:

How can the intrinsic dignity of a person be preserved if intinsically disordered acts are habitual?

That’s like suggesting that A can exist in the same space as B.

It is logically impossible.

I really like the parable of the prodigal son on this one . The “dissolute” living , the “squandering of the inheritance” , all marred the image of God in the prodigal son .The *intrinsically disordered *acts war against the *intrinsic dignity *- no question in my mind.

But God can restore it - He can make all things new . Although the other son may have shown some signs of jealousy, I think he was similar to the voice of justice ; while the Father is the voice of Mercy :

" ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.
But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’ "

How often those words have given me solace when I read them …

And they are worth serious consideration - the whole parable is, because it is Jesus Himself giving us the image of our Heavenly Father.

The problem I see with this thread, analogically speaking, is that too many are trying to say … “Oh well , the prodigal son really didn’t do anything that serious.”

Really ?

Have another look at what the prodigal son said in Christ’s own example He gave us :

" ‘Father, I have sinned against Heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’ "

The son is admitting to committing serious sin. If we remain unable or unwilling to admit the gravity of our own sins , how can we ever expect to be forgiven ?

Just as mercy presupposes justice, forgiveness presupposes repentance . In my mind there is nothing charitable at all about trying to downplay the seriousness of homosexual acts - or of sexual sins in general . That’s like putting up a fence that prevents the prodigal son from returning to the Father … and which also prevents the Father from running out to meet the son… not good :dts:

 

[John21652]

Hey guys, mind if I throw my two cents in?

They’re not paying you enough. And it shows!

Nothing. Nothing happens to that dignity because it is inherent and God-given. But it should still be respected, as the Catechism instructs.

As this is your first post, I’ll go easy on you. You need to read the previous post more carefully. The question you are supposed to be answering here is not what the Catechism says, but my question about what happens to the intrinsic dignity of a person. You answered “nothing” because it is intrinsic. Scoose me, but that’s rather circular, don’t you think? Then off you went on a tangent about the Catechism.

No, I think his “propensity to surmise” is altogether appropriate, given that you’re talking about an “edict we sometimes give to people”. Such a thing is probably, most likely, subjective, and not the inherent dignity CorpusChristi is referring to.

Surmising is guessing, regardless of the subject.

Yes, sin is classified into Mortal and Venial, but surely you don’t mean to say that one Venial sin is equal to another. A boy who steals a cookie from a cookie jar and a boy who steals ten cookies have both committed Venial sins, but clearly the latter has been more sinful. I make this clear distinction to show that yes, there is relativity in sin (beyond the classification into Mortal and Venial). But what if, say, one boy stole a pen and the other a pencil? Both are Venial, but which is worse? A trivial example, maybe, but wouldn’t you say the question is open for debate?

Mortal and venial classifications prove that “… there are indeed degrees of sin, and wrongness, and culpability.” as I wrote in response to Corpus Christi. You are attempting to obfuscate the debate by asking for comparisons of one classification of sins. That attempt doesn’t alter the fact that there are degrees of sin and wrongness and culpability. You need to do better than this.

What exactly does CorpusChristi need to fess up to? I see nothing wrong with the assertion that a “grave depravity” can still be “relatively tame” when compared to, say, serial murder.

If you’d read the posts properly you would see that he is at odds with the Catechism. Your attempt at introducing a red herring is just so ametuerish. Really, two cents you say?

I can’t imagine God saying anything of the sort.

You look rather silly when you suggest that I am quoting God when I wrote, for all to see that "…His answer must, logically, be something along the lines of… . Rather obviously he hasn’t said it yet, so how could you possibly remember Him as having said it?!!

I was under the impression that God doesn’t send anyone to Hell; that if there are souls in Hell, they have put themselves there, and they have done so by sinning, i.e., disrespecting their own dignity (which, by the way, is still very much intact).

So mass murderers, child molesters, murderous dictators and all other evil dudes are in Hell with their dignity intact?

OK, now pull the other one…

 

[Eugenius]

Let’s reproduce the posts here, so there can be no misunderstanding.

In post #31 NeedImprovement posted a quote from the Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexuals and the quote was repeated by me in post #33. It is this -
You say the Church is implying that there is indeed intrinsic dignity in each person. I’d say it was more than a mere implication, being so obvious that the Church writes of intrinsic dignity as a given aspect of the human person.

However, you then unequivocally state that in post #33 that I claim there isn’t! Well, let’s bring my post #33 to this page and see what I said -

Well, there it is in all its glory! Can you see anything in that post that even suggests that I think there is no intrinsic dignity in a person? I actually ask if certain behaviour “…attack and erodes the intrinsic dignity of the individual.” Something can’t be “attacked and eroded” if it doesn’t exist.

Quite frankly, I’m rather amazed that you needed to have explained to you something so obvious.

I am interpreting the Vatican document to say that intrinsic dignity is immutable and absolute. You state that intrinsic dignity can be sacrificed, which implies that it is mutable or relative. Perhaps I am misinterpreting how the term is defined theologically, which is why I am asking for clarification. Which of these interpretations represents true church teaching?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am interpreting the Vatican document to say that intrinsic dignity is immutable and absolute. You state that intrinsic dignity can be sacrificed, which implies that it is mutable or relative. Perhaps I am misinterpreting how the term is defined theologically, which is why I am asking for clarification. Which of these interpretations represents true church teaching?

Normally, adjectives such as immutable and absolute are attributed to God, who does not change. Naturally, persons are not immutable.

When the Church teaches that all persons were created good, she means it. This is straight from Genesis. And when she says that Jesus redeemed all of us, she means it, as well. But our essential goodness and our capability to respond to our corresponding call to sanctity as children of God can be opposed, ignored, attacked from within and without. We regularly de-activate our dignity.

The core potential for goodness is always there, and our bad actions remain redeemable until the moment we draw our last breath and meet our Maker. So a hardened criminal similar to the character Hannibal Lector, or to the lead character in the movie Desperate Measures – any real-life criminal like that has a core dignity, but if he is not behaving to any standard of dignity, then by his actions he has corrupted his own dignity which requires a fundamental and exhaustive conversion, not to mention reparation for that corruption. His dignity has become so compromised that effectively he has made it inert.

All of the great Saints, not just those who came from a position of great sin (like Augustine) experienced how corrosive the effects of sin are. Augustine is a more extreme example: his lifestyle was dissolute. But even Saints who were on an everyday basis what most of us would call holy (Therese of Lisieux, Faustina, etc.) were acutely aware of how even venial sins tarnish, corrupt, degrade our dignity.

When people commit undignified acts, we are nevertheless commanded not to respond in an undignified way to that behavior. (The prison guard, for example, who is trying to live in accord with the Commandments, does not go beyond what his job requires him to do for protection of self & the prison community.)