Pope JP2 on Homosexuality

[Kolbe300]

I believe that if you believe you want to change then you should change because only you can instigate that change and be motivated to change.

Let me try wording it differently. Do you believe a faithful Catholic who happens to have a homosexual orientation should be working to change that orientation? If so, why?

The Church welcomes all repent sinners of whatever stripe, color, shape, size, dimension that has repented and continues to live Life in Christ with the understanding of what that requires.

Many people, especially the young, who have a homosexual orientation have no sexual sin to repent from. Should they work on changing their sexual orientation anyways? If so, why?

 

[CopticChristian]

/QUOTE]

Kolbe,

Let me try wording it differently. Do you believe a faithful Catholic who happens to have a homosexual orientation should be working to change that orientation? If so, why?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Aspirant,

Thank you for understanding how to play in the sand box.

Your entire complaint about existentialism appears to be because you don’t actually understand concupiscence or it’s nature so get out of the sand box with your toys and go home.

 

[Kolbe300]

I believe a faithful Catholic who happens to have a SSA/homosexual orientation should be working to change that orientation when that orientation is a cause of problems that cause concerns for that faithful Catholic and that faithful Catholic believes that seeking to change would solve that problem.

Okay, great. I like that answer. And I agree. If someone wants to seek a change in their sexual orientation, they should be allowed to do so. Now, do you think it would be fair and honest if a person seeking to change their sexual orientation is advised that orientation changed is far from guaranteed? Do we have enough evidence to say that if they want it bad enough it will certainly happen?

Would telling them that orientation change is not a necessity for living the Christian life to fulfillment be an honest statement? If not, why not?

 

[aspirant]

Thank you for understanding how to play in the sand box.

So are you answering, or leaving?

 

[CopticChristian]

Okay, great. I like that answer. And I agree. If someone wants to seek a change in their sexual orientation, they should be allowed to do so.

Kolbe,

Now, do you think it would be fair and honest if a person seeking to change their sexual orientation is advised that orientation changed is far from guaranteed? Do we have enough evidence to say that if they want it bad enough it will certainly happen?

There are never any guarantees. There are those that want to change an internal state or external behavior. The only guarantee is that the greater the motivation the greater the likelyhood that some change can occur. There is also a guarantee that something will happen in the effort that will be noticed at the end of that effort.

Would telling them that orientation change is not a necessity for living the Christian life to fulfillment be an honest statement? If not, why not?

This would be a question that would be answered if asked however if not asked would not be presented. I imagine it would be framed as follows…

Is it your belief that orientation is not a necessity for living the Christian life to fulfillment?

Whatever the belief may be questioned for clarity.

The discussion that fits that belief without prejudice should be entertained.

 

[CopticChristian]

So are you answering, or leaving?

Aspirant,

I am not obligated to answer a question knowing that the answer is not what is wanted. The discussion of concupiscence is near and dear to DR. If DR wants to discuss consupiscence then he should discuss it…here is what the Catechism says…

2514 St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life.301 In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods.

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the "spirit."302 Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.303

2516 Because man is a composite being, spirit and body, there already exists a certain tension in him; a certain struggle of tendencies between “spirit” and “flesh” develops. But in fact this struggle belongs to the heritage of sin. It is a consequence of sin and at the same time a confirmation of it. It is part of the daily experience of the spiritual battle:

For the Apostle it is not a matter of despising and condemning the body which with the spiritual soul constitutes man’s nature and personal subjectivity. Rather, he is concerned with the morally good or bad works, or better, the permanent dispositions - virtues and vices - which are the fruit of submission (in the first case) or of resistance (in the second case) to the saving action of the Holy Spirit. For this reason the Apostle writes: "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit."304

and here Scott Hahn expresses our desire for the lesser goods as opposed to the greater goods.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2012/09/10/concupiscence-i-scott-hahn/

Concupiscence I – Scott Hahn
September 10, 2012

Concupiscence itself is not sin, but it is the result of original sin and the cause of actual sins. It is an innate inclination to sin; but it is not a personal transgression. Concupiscence does not render me guilty, but it does render me vulnerable to temptation and positively prone to sin.

Is there something you want to offer as it concerns this thread?

I am going back to building castles in the sand…

 

[RobbyS]

I believe this view is wrong. The contrary view has been accepted by all the major mental health organisations, and will be adopted by the Catholic church in its own time.

The same physicians who once decided that homosexuality is a mental illness, which is something the Church never said, and then, unable by their tools to calm such spirits, by a counting of raised hands, with no new science, told us the opposite? Fact is that science knows no more about these cases than you or I,

 

[aspirant]

Aspirant, I am not obligated to answer a question

Of course not. But you told us that you would leave if Dakota didn’t answer the question. Are you leaving?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Aspirant,

I am not obligated to answer a question knowing that the answer is not what is wanted. The discussion of concupiscence is near and dear to DR. If DR wants to discuss consupiscence then he should discuss it…here is what the Catechism says…

and here Scott Hahn expresses our desire for the lesser goods as opposed to the greater goods.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2012/09/10/concupiscence-i-scott-hahn/

Concupiscence I – Scott Hahn
September 10, 2012

Is there something you want to offer as it concerns this thread?

I am going back to building castles in the sand…

Copy and pasting does not reflect knowledge.

 

[CopticChristian]

Copy and pasting does not reflect knowledge.

DR,

Do you see this as a problem?

What does knowledge mean to you?

What does this say about you that you confer lack of knowledge without providing evidence for what knowledge is?

 

[Jimmygill88]

If you believe that then you have to acknowledge pedophilia (or any attraction by adults to children or minors) as normal. Or people who want to engage in sexual relationships with family members. Or with animals. Politicized science will talk of homosexuality having no negative repercussions. Real science paints a different picture. Tremendous increase risk to contracting aids (for homosexual males), huuuge spike in suicide in practicing homosexual teens, take your pick. The list of negative goes on and on. Can’t change laws based on someones “feelings”. Serial killers “feel” good when they murder people. I guess it’s time to legalize murder (oh wait, abortion, they already did)

Disgusting. Breathtakingly offensive