Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[LongingSoul]

Can you elaborate on what actions, flowing from SSA, might orient to somewhere licit? Clearly they exist, otherwise the qualification in the quote would be unnecessary.

As in a renunciation of the disorder. Embracing sacrifice as a meaningful option. Turning our suffering to the Cross and walking with the Lord on the road to Calvary. These are fundamental Catholic beliefs that underpin our whole way of life. We live with disordered inclinations all in our own ways and we don’t wear them like victims… we turn them to the mission of Christ. Direct our passions to life in the spirit, renouncing the flesh when the flesh calls us to the goals of the enemy of Christ.

This is one of the most wonderful things about the Catholic way of life!

 

[LongingSoul]

Then, sadly, the good Cardinal must either have slipped or been affected by his own native language.

The sentence you quote would make zero sense in my native language, and I suspect that it would not in Latin, either.

Cardinal Ratzinger, then heading the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, one of the most learned, multilingual and holy men… Pope emeritis no less… made a mistake in an official Vatican document… according to you. I’m so flabbergasted by the sheer narcissism of it all.

 

[Rau]

As in a renunciation of the disorder. Embracing sacrifice as a meaningful option. Turning our suffering to the Cross and walking with the Lord on the road to Calvary. These are fundamental Catholic beliefs that underpin our whole way of life. We live with disordered inclinations all in our own ways and we don’t wear them like victims… we turn them to mission of Christ. Direct our passions to life in the spirit, renouncing the flesh when the flesh calls us to the goals of the enemy of Christ.

This is one of the most wonderful think about the Catholic way of life!

Try to apply that understanding to the statements quoted from the 2 Bishops Conferences. Ask yourself “what was in the mind of the Bishops in carefully qualifying what is objectively disordered in the way they did”? Is the above the answer you get? Seriously?

 

[Rau]

Cardinal Ratzinger, then heading the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, one of the most learned, multilingual and holy men… Pope emeritis no less… made a mistake in an official Vatican document… according to you. I’m so flabbergasted by the sheer narcissism of it all.

The error is essentially grammatical. The teaching here is fine.

 

[LongingSoul]

Try to apply that understanding to the statements quoted from the 2 Bishops Conferences. Ask yourself “what was in the mind of the Bishops in carefully qualifying what is objectively disordered in the way they did”? Is the above the answer you get? Seriously?

Sometimes I’m shocked to learn that lifelong Catholics don’t know or believe the fundamental charisms of Catholicism. I simply don’t know how to answer you. You seem so gone to the other side with relativistic fervour that you don’t even consider that the basic position of Catholic teaching is ordered to the life of the spirit rather than the desires of the flesh. Sadly, I think you are more inclined towards the falseness being promoted here and not truly open to Catholic truth at all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As in a renunciation of the disorder. Embracing sacrifice as a meaningful option. Turning our suffering to the Cross and walking with the Lord on the road to Calvary. These are fundamental Catholic beliefs that underpin our whole way of life. We live with disordered inclinations all in our own ways and we don’t wear them like victims… we turn them to mission of Christ. Direct our passions to life in the spirit, renouncing the flesh when the flesh calls us to the goals of the enemy of Christ.

This is one of the most wonderful think about the Catholic way of life!

Amen

Or you can punch holes in what the Church states “Therefore, a romance with no sexual “object” cannot be disordered. The element that would be wrongly ordered is no longer part of the picture” .and continue along a hedonistic path. The adjective “disordered” is the continuation of entertaining a relationship which is the noun “disorder”. The only difference is to acknowledge the disorder and continue to any degree on the disordered path.

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes a trial. Welcome to the club with the rest of us.

 

[Rin]

Cardinal Ratzinger, then heading the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, one of the most learned, multilingual and holy men… Pope emeritis no less… made a mistake in an official Vatican document… according to you. I’m so flabbergasted by the sheer narcissism of it all.

As Rau said, the mistake was grammatical. In English. Now I was somehow under the impression we were speaking about a natively English-speaking Cardinal, but apparently we weren’t. My bad.

However, then I’ll rephrase: Whoever translated Cardinal Ratzinger’s document to English, slipped or was affected by their native language of (presumably) English.

(And lastly: It might or might not interest you that I have criticized Cardinal Ratzinger in an academic essay once, which was corrected by a very orthodox professor, and I received an A. Oh, and the Pope emeritus happens to be the single person who has meant the most for my faith, a person to whom I’ll ever be grateful, and the theologian I put in highest esteem among the theologians of the few last centuries. However, putting someone in highest esteem does not mean they are untouchable. I’m afraid that attitude doesn’t fly in theology classes.)

 

[GaryTaylor]

As Rau said, the mistake was grammatical.

Mine wasn’t.

 

[Rin]

hedonistic path

Or you could quit misrepresenting other people’s statements, and try considering what they have to say.

I and others are not speaking of anything that even comes remotely close to “hedonism”. We are speaking of a kind of love that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marital love, a form of intimacy that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marital intimacy, and a state of life, that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marriage.

I’m sorry, it is not my intention to demean marriage. However, I strongly object to be accused of advocating a “hedonistic path”, just because I advocate a return to a millennia-long tradition of the Church.

 

[estesbob]

Or you could quit misrepresenting other people’s statements, and try considering what they have to say.

I and others are not speaking of anything that even comes remotely close to “hedonism”. We are speaking of a kind of love that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marital love, a form of intimacy that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marital intimacy, and a state of life, that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marriage.

I’m sorry, it is not my intention to demean marriage. However, I strongly object to be accused of advocating a “hedonistic path”, just because I advocate a return to a millennia-long tradition of the Church.

So you believe two men making outv is a higher love than marriage?

 

[Rin]

Mine wasn’t.

Well, there was a grammatical mistake in what you quoted.

To go to the Latin text:

CDF:

Hac de causa, ipsa propensio obiective inordinata est iudicanda.

Here, the word used is “propensity”, not “disorder”. The translation is in error.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Wisdom knows when to speak and when to remain silent. I hope that everyone in this thread aspires to wisdom.

 

[Rau]

Sometimes I’m shocked to learn that lifelong Catholics don’t know or believe the fundamental charisms of Catholicism. I simply don’t know how to answer you. You seem so gone to the other side with relativistic fervour that you don’t even consider that the basic position of Catholic teaching is ordered to the life of the spirit rather than the desires of the flesh. Sadly, I think you are more inclined towards the falseness being promoted here and not truly open to Catholic truth at all.

Why do you attack my motives, my genuine enquiry, my faith? What place does that have here?

 

[LongingSoul]

I and others are not speaking of anything that even comes remotely close to “hedonism”. We are speaking of a kind of love that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marital love, a form of intimacy that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marital intimacy, and a state of life, that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marriage.

I’m sorry, it is not my intention to demean marriage. However, I strongly object to be accused of advocating a “hedonistic path”, just because I advocate a return to a millennia-long tradition of the Church.

Love that is not ordered towards species survival as served by the marriage and family, must find its expression in the spiritual relationship with God and the disinterested friendship of neighbours. Apart from the religious vocation and the vocation of the celibate single person… there is no other licit expressions of love. The relationship you are suggesting does not conform to chastity and is not endorsed by Church teaching.

That is a scurrilous lie.

 

[LongingSoul]

Why do you attack my motives, my genuine enquiry, my faith? What place does that have here?

I don’t believe you are genuine. Sorry.

 

[Rin]

So you believe two men making outv is a higher love than marriage?

I believe fraternal love is a higher love than marital love.

And yes, sometimes kissing can be, and has been, historically, part of such fraternal love. Fraternal love is the very essence of romantic friendship.

Honestly, everyone: Can you please stop caricaturing what people say? Could you please try to debate the issue, not a misrepresentation of it? Or is this too much to ask?

Threads like these anger me, not because people disagree with me (I’m used to that, from “both sides”), but because people just don’t seem to even want to consider the opponent’s argument. It’s worse than a shouting contest.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Or you could quit misrepresenting other people’s statements, and try considering what they have to say.

You have a different understanding of the original content and the translation than I. And I did consider what you stated thus the response. I disagree, how about considering that and what in fact Benedict stated. He drew the line closer that you would like.

I and others are not speaking of anything that even comes remotely close to “hedonism”. We are speaking of a kind of love that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marital love, a form of intimacy that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marital intimacy, and a state of life, that is traditionally, by the Church, considered as higher than marriage.

Oh, I don’t know that seems rather an opinion which again here I agree with the Church. What you are considering is the most convoluted stretch of the imagination I have heard to date, And no just to be clear I don;t consider your proposed thinking a higher standard of anything, that is illusion imho.

I’m sorry, it is not my intention to demean marriage. However, I strongly object to be accused of advocating a “hedonistic path”, just because I advocate a return to a millennia-long tradition of the Church.

A return? If you went any further off track we would have to catch a jet to return.

 

[Rin]

Love that is not ordered towards species survival as served by the marriage and family, must find its expression in the spiritual relationship with God and the disinterested friendship of neighbours. Apart from the religious vocation and the vocation of the celibate single person… there is no other licit expressions of love. The relationship you are suggesting does not conform to chastity and is not endorsed by Church teaching.

That is a scurrilous lie.

Well, seems the Church was wrong for 1900 years then.

 

[LongingSoul]

I believe fraternal love is a higher love than marital love.

And yes, sometimes kissing can be, and has been, historically, part of such fraternal love. Fraternal love is the very essence of romantic friendship.

Honestly, everyone: Can you please stop caricaturing what people say? Could you please try to debate the issue, not a misrepresentation of it? Or is this too much to ask?

Threads like these anger me, not because people disagree with me (I’m used to that, from “both sides”), but because people just don’t seem to even want to consider the opponent’s argument. It’s worse than a shouting contest.

You are promoting falsehood as Church teaching and think you should be protected from challenge.

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, seems the Church was wrong for 1900 years then.

You made up a lie and think we accept it. You shouldn’t be shocked.