Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Exactly, the issue of attraction, or by extension, orientation (a word I am beginning to despise in this context), is really irrelevant.
Is the Church unkind to “self-identified persons” other than “homosexual persons”?
- Status
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
All depends how full of beans you are, in the light of the Church’s many errors! If your stamina runs low, like mine, you can just see if there’s one person of your actual acquaintance, in your neighbourhood, and help them know the real situation (drawing on my answers rather than your own) and save them some worry as an individual. Jesus isn’t grandiose in the quantity of achievement He demands of us.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Ref my 121, I meant to add Rau has dealt with it adequately in 110.
J
jjr9
Guest
I believe the Lord created male and female. I believe SSA is a temptation and SS behavior a sin.
I believe that the “homosexual person” defined by the Church a myth and the Church in error to
accept this as reality.
So do I.
Do you believe anyone capable of exclusive SSA? I do not.
Do you believe Satan real, abstract or something else? I believe Satan real present and looking
to keep as many souls from Eternal Life as he can.
What is your definition of a “homosexual person”?
Do you have something that informs this belief beyond testimonials?
I don’t want to offend you and I don’t believe that this is the correct venue to discuss your personal situation.
I don’t know the path that lead you to where you are today but I can say with confidence that it is not the Lord
that calls you to thinking you are a biromantic asexual.
God bless
J
jjr9
Guest
Do you believe some people experience an exclusive SSA? If so on what basis?
God bless
R
Rau
Guest
Why do you believe they do not experience it? On what basis do you reject the evidence of those good and faithful Catholics who report that this is their experience?
S
spiderweb
Guest
Please stop asserting the falsehood that the Church is defining it as you are interpreting it. Your interpretation of it has been demonstrated repeatedly to be a false assertion. Even if you can’t understand the reasons for it being false, or how it is a false understanding. Instead you just continue to insist that you are correct and the Church is wrong.
FYI- The Church never defined the “homosexual person” as you claim. What the Church did define was “homosexuality”.
J
jjr9
Guest
Thank you for taking time to respond. My point is that I believe that the Church has made
an error by encouraging people to believe that they have the capacity to experience an
exclusive SSA. This is not complicated I believe this is unkind by the Church to people who
are in a bad place in there life.
Do you believe anyone capable of experiencing an exclusive SSA? I do not.
God bless
A
Andrea_Day
Guest
Yes, in the beginning God created male and female, Adam and Eve. Today, intersex and transgender persons exist as well. If you consider the Church to be in error, brother you need to pray and submit yourself to the infallible Catholic Church. Some teachings are hard to accept, I know, but they are true, and therefore worth submitting to, even before we fully understand them. I’ll pray for you. I believe SSA is a neutral reality, neither good or evil, though disordered, or not ordered towards the end of matrimony (God’s version). Absolutely, Satan and demons are real, and they can tempt us to disobey God, and they may use a person’s orientation to do so. It is a sin to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage (God’s version), and therefore all sexual acts and lust between persons of the same sex is sinful. Yes, many people experience exclusive sexual attraction to their own sex. Do you have any reason to believe everyone who shares this experience is a liar? A homosexual person is a person who experiences sexual attraction towards their own sex, and today usually means their attraction is exclusively towards their own sex. Sadly, like our Dear Lord’s name, the word “homosexual” can be/has been misused. Misused to hurt people or refer to them as being less than who they are: beloved children of God with rights and dignity. But properly used, the term “homosexual” is simply a description of a human experience, used to understand it and hopefully love our neighbor better in the understanding. “Homosexual person” does not mean that homosexuality is THE defining thing about a person, the most important reality, etc. To say “I’m homosexual” is like saying, “I’m blonde”, “I’m German”, I’m a dancer", “I’m choleric” or “I’m 22”. Our orientation is just another part of us, like any part. Well thank you for sharing your intentions. I have no intention to offend you either. Is there a rule on this forum I am unaware of which forbids the sharing of your orientation? If so, my apologies. If not, and you simply don’t feel comfortable hearing me share that I have a minority orientation in a thread talking about people with minority orientations, perhaps you should move to a different thread.
I don’t know what path led you to feel uncomfortable enough about my orientation that you don’t want me to be open about it here, but I’m secure about the different parts of who I am. Yes one of those parts is biromantic asexual. The most important part is daughter of God. I’ll have you know that the Lord has allowed me to experience this orientation for a reason, to draw me closer to Him and help me better love my neighbors. For example, before I had ssa, I dressed immodestly, because I thought modesty was just a rule with no basis about how much skin you have to cover, the idea that some parts of you were too ugly to expose. Now that I have ssa, I understand why modesty is necessary to battle lust and have been able to change my wardrobe and give advice to my girlfriends about it as well. My ssa has also given me a cross which has taught me to trust God more and study more deeply the Church’s teachings. It seems very clear to me that wherever it came from, the Lord is using this in my life for good. God Bless!
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
A misspelling in the Bible or a injudicious description that got in through the back door does not contradict the vast edifice of Christian or Catholic teaching. There have been exceptional Protestants like John Welsey, JS Bach, etc.,that no one would dispute their own piety, yet the basis of their faith to Catholics on the whole has been flawed by Luther’s intentional mistranslations of “Solus” that we don’t have to get into now.
What I am saying, if we get the big stuff right, it doesn’t matter so much about the little slip ups. Let this be recorded now and forever, the totality of Judeo-Christian scripture going back further than the 3000 years when it started to be recorded, is based on the dichotomy of male and female. Homosexual relations were considered an abomination, not identity or slip up. It is not a minor infraction.
No, not at all, it is a destructive and pernicious spirit. It is now destroying Western society by exploding the institution of marriage. It is infringing on rights of conscience and religion. It is corrupting the youth and may just succeed in overturning what was democracy into fascism. The madness is already seen in a new directive in New York City to protect cross dressers, many of them mentally disturbed, as opposed to the freedom, discretion and freedom of the majority by imposing draconian fines up to $250,000 if they don’t admit them to same sex washrooms, etc. This is tyranny.
Please, don’t equate the two. To me it is indecent.
Don’t agree either except if a person says “I’m an alcoholic”.
What we are attracted to is not identity, is not recognized by the body of Catholic of Christian teaching for 2000 years and further back to the Old Testament for another 1000 years. A Protestant believer friend of mine told me that EVERYTHING in the Bible is significant. If we may think that the almost interminable who begat whom is boring, it stresses by way of repetition the importance of family ties which in turn is the basis of history. Knowledge and respect for history is at the root of civilization. You can’t have one without the other.
Now comes the smart guys of the latter part of the 20th century, who know more than the dodgy oldsters of the Bible, and invent new “identities”. This might seem innocuous but these will marginalize normal sexuality and relationships so there is no more aberration or dysfunction, everything and anything goes! Heterosexual relations are just one item on the menu. No,not at all! This is entirely against the spirit and letter of the Law. People have died for this issue like John the Baptist and St. Thomas More. They did not think it was trivial. In fact, getting these new identities through the back door is letting in an enormous Trojan Horse that is purposely destroying the bases of our civilization.
R
Rau
Guest
Nonsense. SSA is none of that. Accuse those who advocate the normalcy of same sex sexual relationships, but not the phenomenon of (unchosen) SSA itself nor the individuals whose misfortune it is to experience it.
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
You’re right, it is a misfortune. I know personally how pernicious and destructive it is, first for individuals and by extension the rest of society. It doesn’t drop from the sky. It usually comes from molestation, abuse, and/or neglect. Older men frequently initiate younger men into the club, who when they get older, do the same to others. One thing, it ain’t, is identity.
R
Rau
Guest
Whatever “identity” means? I don’t think anyone on the thread suggests it is that. Nevertheless it is real, not made up. It is not temptation, but establishes the basis for specific temptations.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Jjr9, please can you start a separate thread to deal with the aspect of exclusive and non-exclusive SSAs. Please will everyone else cooperate in seeking that.
This thread is getting somewhere on the subject of critiquing Church documents.
Spiderweb (128), it is fair to say that by careless juxtaposition of words (e.g in title of document) the Church is somewhat doing so.
Jjr, Andrea’s self-description is fine because she is not claiming a different application of Christian teaching for her category. Andrea is confused in her usage of the phrase “homosexual person” just like the Church is!
This thread is getting somewhere on the subject of critiquing Church documents.
Spiderweb (128), it is fair to say that by careless juxtaposition of words (e.g in title of document) the Church is somewhat doing so.
Jjr, Andrea’s self-description is fine because she is not claiming a different application of Christian teaching for her category. Andrea is confused in her usage of the phrase “homosexual person” just like the Church is!
S
spiderweb
Guest
No jjr9’s complaint is with the Catechism which is meant to instruct the faith. Your reference is to a pastoral letter which is not the same and would require a different thread to get into.
S
spiderweb
Guest
jjr9:
I’m going to try a little different approach.
I find it puzzling that you think that everyone is capable of OSA. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, all of mankind experiences the consequences of that sin. Not only do we experience the spiritual effects called concupiscence (the inclination to sin), but we also all experience physical and/or psychological effects. Some people are born with blindness, deafness, missing limbs, mental disabilities, sickness, etc. These are all physical consequences of Original Sin. Ultimately we all experience the worst of all which is death. Specific physical consequences may not affect everyone and they may be different from person to person, but there is no part of humanity which is untouched by both the spiritual AND physical effects of Original Sin.
You attribute SSA to the spiritual effects of Original Sin by saying that it’s a temptation, but at the same time deny any physical effects that may contribute to SSA even though both effects are tied to Original Sin.
By saying that everyone is capable of OSA, you are implying that the physical and/or psychological consequences of Original Sin did not affect human sexuality. It also seems that it would be perfectly acceptable to you if the Church taught that everyone is capable of OSA, even though that would be a contradiction to the physical effects of Original Sin.
I’m going to try a little different approach.
I find it puzzling that you think that everyone is capable of OSA. Since the fall of Adam and Eve, all of mankind experiences the consequences of that sin. Not only do we experience the spiritual effects called concupiscence (the inclination to sin), but we also all experience physical and/or psychological effects. Some people are born with blindness, deafness, missing limbs, mental disabilities, sickness, etc. These are all physical consequences of Original Sin. Ultimately we all experience the worst of all which is death. Specific physical consequences may not affect everyone and they may be different from person to person, but there is no part of humanity which is untouched by both the spiritual AND physical effects of Original Sin.
You attribute SSA to the spiritual effects of Original Sin by saying that it’s a temptation, but at the same time deny any physical effects that may contribute to SSA even though both effects are tied to Original Sin.
By saying that everyone is capable of OSA, you are implying that the physical and/or psychological consequences of Original Sin did not affect human sexuality. It also seems that it would be perfectly acceptable to you if the Church taught that everyone is capable of OSA, even though that would be a contradiction to the physical effects of Original Sin.
I’m puzzled that you want the Church to change what you believe to be wrong, and instead teach something that would be heretical by contradicting the doctrine of Original Sin.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
Zamyra, it can sometimes come from superficially “nice” situations with e.g over-protective uncles, a battleaxe for a great-grandmother with every succeeding generation walking on eggshells for miles around, or something. Perhaps the very last people we would want to see accused of molesting us but an extremely potent and subtle form of shaming and neglect nonetheless.
J
jjr9
Guest
Thank you for the time, effort and thought that you have put into your response I do appreciate it. IYes, in the beginning God created male and female, Adam and Eve. Today, intersex and transgender persons exist as well. If you consider the Church to be in error, brother you need to pray and submit yourself to the infallible Catholic Church. Some teachings are hard to accept, I know, but they are true, and therefore worth submitting to, even before we fully understand them. I’ll pray for you. I believe SSA is a neutral reality, neither good or evil, though disordered, or not ordered towards the end of matrimony (God’s version). Absolutely, Satan and demons are real, and they can tempt us to disobey God, and they may use a person’s orientation to do so. It is a sin to engage in sexual acts outside of marriage (God’s version), and therefore all sexual acts and lust between persons of the same sex is sinful. Yes, many people experience exclusive sexual attraction to their own sex. Do you have any reason to believe everyone who shares this experience is a liar? A homosexual person is a person who experiences sexual attraction towards their own sex, and today usually means their attraction is exclusively towards their own sex. Sadly, like our Dear Lord’s name, the word “homosexual” can be/has been misused. Misused to hurt people or refer to them as being less than who they are: beloved children of God with rights and dignity. But properly used, the term “homosexual” is simply a description of a human experience, used to understand it and hopefully love our neighbor better in the understanding. “Homosexual person” does not mean that homosexuality is THE defining thing about a person, the most important reality, etc. To say “I’m homosexual” is like saying, “I’m blonde”, “I’m German”, I’m a dancer", “I’m choleric” or “I’m 22”. Our orientation is just another part of us, like any part. Well thank you for sharing your intentions. I have no intention to offend you either. Is there a rule on this forum I am unaware of which forbids the sharing of your orientation? If so, my apologies. If not, and you simply don’t feel comfortable hearing me share that I have a minority orientation in a thread talking about people with minority orientations, perhaps you should move to a different thread.
would like to continue the conversation if it is alright with you. The limit is 6000 characters so I don’t
think it possible to fully address your reply. I will start with a limited focus . If there is something specific
in your response that you would like me to comment on I would be happy to I just ask that we limit to
one small aspect at a time.
You say:
What do you base this on?
God bless
A
Andrea_Day
Guest
Sure.
- Status