Was that a response to my post or another one? I understand what makes a sin a sin, I was simply clarifying that while homosexuality is not a sin (it is a state of being), it is still ordered toward moral evil. Thus, it is a state of being that leads toward sin upon a corresponding action occurring.
When I read your words you sound like the person is condemned to sinning. That is not true. “a state of being” isn’t in the Catechism. SSA is a temptation. A strong temptation to be sure, but not one that can’t be resisted. We are not meant to judge others who have temptations (I am pretty sure I said that before)
Correct. And that is why the former-- when acted upon and only when acted upon–is a greater violation and will always be. It directly opposes God’s design, no matter how it’s dressed up as “romantic,” “harmless,” and in other positive clothing. No “marriage certificate” and no popular societal approval could ever change that.
I agree. He reads much more into what Pope Francis said than is justified by the words or Francis’ past comments on this topic. I think it is a lot of wishful thinking on his part.
No, that is not what people are saying but that may be how folks mistakenly interpret it. I feel sorry for our Pope as millions of people misinterpret what he says. As Simon and Garfunkel once sang a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.
I did not say that the person is condemned to sinning. I said that: 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
“is a greater violation and will always be.” Greater than what? Murder? hardly. Abortion? nope. Doesn’t matter… it is off topic to this thread, isn’t it?
I am starting to think these basic theological concepts are lost on most folks. Why?
Thank you, Gilliam, for trying to show love to those of us with same-sex attraction.
Constructing a straw man and attacking it is no love. Our Pope mentioned the gay lobby. That agenda has taken hold on our culture. Children are at stake. We need to show love for them.Thank you, Gilliam, for trying to show love to those of us with same-sex attraction.
No, but special attention ought to be given to those afflicted with same sex attraction. While they ought never be rejected, they ought to be properly catechized and instructed in how they should live in accord with the teachings of our Holy Mother Church. If this doesn’t happen, if this special attention and instruction does not occur, they may be led to believe that same sex attraction is morally permissible, which is an error.
Nope, We need to make sure that we don’t lead someone with this temptation to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not. But there are a lot of objective disorders in life. This is but one of them. One that a lot of conservative Catholics seem fixated on for some reason.
While they ought never be rejected,
Well played, my good man, well played. I am pleased to see you are well read in the CDF here. Indeed, there are a lot of objective disorders, but the reason that same sex attraction has assumed a place of prominence is because it is very relevant in our time and must be addressed.
I don’t see why they wouldn’t feel welcome. My tone is not unwelcoming.
Me.
The “misinterpreting” seems to be on both sides.
What are you feeling rejected by, exactly?
I’ve been supportive of what the Pope said. I think he said it in good will.