Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[Prodigal_Son]

I did not accuse the person. I addressed the persons argument. Saying that a clarification by the CDF was a grammatical error and translated wrongly by the Papal offices, has never and will never make a credible argument. Imagine saying that about any part of Catholic doctrine. We could legitimise abortion, contraception… whatever we like.

“I’m flabbergasted by the narcissism of it all” is a way of addressing a person’s argument?

 

[LongingSoul]

“I’m flabbergasted by the narcissism of it all” is a way of addressing a person’s argument?

Do you think I would refer to a person as ‘it all’ ?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Do you think I would refer to a person as ‘it all’ ?

What was your purpose in saying that? Myself, I’m guessing that you said what you felt. And I don’t have any problem with you feeling what you felt. But we need to carefully evaluate whether the words that come out of our mouths encourage our brothers and sisters to goodness and holiness.

If they don’t, we need to bite our tongues – even if our feelings are valid.

 

[LongingSoul]

What was your purpose in saying that? Myself, I’m guessing that you said what you felt. And I don’t have any problem with you feeling what you felt. But we need to carefully evaluate whether the words that come out of our mouths encourage our brothers and sisters to goodness and holiness.

If they don’t, we need to bite our tongues – even if our feelings are valid.

The Church herself distinguishes between a pastoral approach and a theological approach to issues. We are here in the Apologetics section of CAF addressing issues from a theological standpoint. At times we all contribute an example from our own lives… but we do it at the service of a theological argument. I did not accuse the person herself of being a narcissist because here we are dealing in argument in a theologically objective way… not in personality or a subjective experience of truth.

 

[SMGS127]

You have admitted on several occasions that what you are promoting ie. french kissing and cuddling, commitment, exclusivity in the way of at least a marriagable couple, comes from your personal supposed ability to completely detach this intimacy from your own homosexual tendencies. It is a union that imitates the marriagable union in every way apart from the supposed lack of sex but is a fantasy outside the Catholic understanding of chastity and ‘disinterested’ friendship.

No what I have presented is a framework within two people can take care of each other in a committed partnership of friends, with physical intimacy involved only insofar as it is not oriented towards genital activity in any way, and that is sexually disinterested. The individuals involved would, through their consciences and self-knowledge, understand where their limits were to avoid being tempted and stay away from them, so as to avoid involving any sort of disordered behavior.

None of this is “sexually intimate” or “marital-like.”

 

[LongingSoul]

No what I have presented is a framework within two people can take care of each other in a committed partnership of friends, with physical intimacy involved only insofar as it is not oriented towards genital activity in any way, and that is sexually disinterested. The individuals involved would, through their consciences and self-knowledge, understand where their limits were to avoid being tempted and stay away from them, so as to avoid involving any sort of disordered behavior.

None of this is “sexually intimate” or “marital-like.”

Of course it is. What you are promoting is what’s termed ‘domestic partnership’. Many marriages exist in this way without sex due to infirmity or necessary separations of some sort. That does not suddenly make a ‘disinterested friendship’. Their regard for each other remains that of the young, sexually active lovers they once were. Lovers and friends are not distinguished only by the presence of intercourse. It is the overall regard that defines the relationship.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The Church herself distinguishes between a pastoral approach and a theological approach to issues. We are here in the Apologetics section of CAF addressing issues from a theological standpoint. At times we all contribute an example from our own lives… but we do it at the service of a theological argument. I did not accuse the person herself of being a narcissist because here we are dealing in argument in a theologically objective way… not in personality or a subjective experience of truth.

But this is my whole point. What is the theological relevance of narcissism here? And how could it have ANY theological relevance, if you aren’t suggesting that someone like Rin is a narcissist?

I think you made an honest mistake. But it *was *a mistake.

 

[One_point]

Oops! quoted wrong post: I meant to quote the post on marital-like arrangements.

.

Indeed. Not to mention that this couple is a couple that is actually sexually attracted to each other, that is, it is romantically “into” each other. Imagine a heterosexual couple romantically involved, a boyfriend and his girlfriend suggesting to live together in a commitment “to take care of each other” while expressing their affection in all sorts of physical ways but sex, including sharing a bed you would tell them to quit the nonsense and get married if they wanted but otherwise to act r
Like the responsible Catholics they claim to be. No one would support the suggestion in a proper heterosexual couple even an engaged one but somehow for gay people, reality changes.

 

[SMGS127]

-]/-]

Of course it is. What you are promoting is what’s termed ‘domestic partnership’. Many marriages exist in this way without sex due to infirmity or necessary separations of some sort. That does not suddenly make a ‘disinterested friendship’. Their regard for each other remains that of the young, sexually active lovers they once were. Lovers and friends are not distinguished only by the presence of intercourse. It is the overall regard that defines the relationship.

Domestic partnerships have existed in the Church for the entirety of the Church . They just weren’t legally called that. But any two close friends of the same sex who lived together for life and took care of each other (and even kissed and shared beds! ) would be in a “domestic partnership.”

 

[LongingSoul]

But this is my whole point. What is the theological relevance of narcissism here? And how could it have ANY theological relevance, if you aren’t suggesting that someone like Rin is a narcissist?

I think you made an honest mistake. But it *was *a mistake.

I believe you to be trying to grandstand here. I wrote a passionate exclamation using a recognised concept to demonstrate the flaw of the persons argument…as an apologetics related challenge. Narcissism in psychological terms means believing oneself to be the highest authority of truth. The argument put forward to defend a point was that the CDF, then Card.Ratzinger and the Papal office had made a grammatical error and a mis translation of an issue. The lack of regard for the authority of the CDF etc and the exaggerated regard for the personal opinion of the poster here… demonstrate a decidedly narcissistic aspect. Are we really situated by our opinions to override Church teaching this way? No.

 

[GaryTaylor]

-]/-]

Domestic partnerships have existed in the Church for the entirety of the Church . They just weren’t legally called that. But any two close friends of the same sex who lived together for life and took care of each other (and even kissed and shared beds! ) would be in a “domestic partnership.”

Where is the proof this existed as you say? Its complete assumption. Its true friendships have existed, they may well have loved each other which is highly probable. But the rest is speculation. Further to propose this is condoned is simply not true. So had this indeed occured…no one would have known.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I believe you to be trying to grandstand here. I wrote a passionate exclamation using a recognised concept to demonstrate the flaw of the persons argument…as an apologetics related challenge. Narcissism in psychological terms means believing oneself to be the highest authority of truth. The argument put forward to defend a point was that the CDF, then Card.Ratzinger and the Papal office had made a grammatical error and a mis translation of an issue. The lack of regard for the authority of the CDF etc and the exaggerated regard for the personal opinion of the poster here… demonstrate a decidedly narcissistic aspect. Are we really situated by our opinions to override Church teaching this way? No.

(1) That’s not what narcissism is. “Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an excessive sense of self-importance, an extreme preoccupation with themselves, and lack of empathy for others.”

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=narcissism+definition

(2) Narcissism is a mental illness. It is not to be tossed around lightly.

(3) Rin was clearly quite hurt by a number of things you said. Is it grandstanding for someone to want you to see quite clearly that you are doing something wrong?

And if it IS grandstanding to show someone they are doing something wrong, haven’t you been grandstanding for much of this thread?

 

[One_point]

Where is the proof this existed as you say? Its complete assumption. Its true friendships have existed, they may well have loved each other which is highly probable. But the rest is speculation. Further to propose this is condoned is simply not true. So had this indeed occured…no one would have known.

the idea is this: people have lived together in history. Therefore from this I can extrapolate that I get to date a woman I am sexually attracted to with a view to forming a commitment of exclusivity with her that is exactly like a boyfriend and girlfriend, move in with her, share her bed, make out (because I am this super creature who will not get aroused unlike you fallen ones) and this is not at all an attempt to get a gay union without the sex

 

[SMGS127]

make out (because I am this super creature who will not get aroused unlike you fallen ones)

Sigh.

It is uncharitable to disbelieve me, especially considering I’ve done it before for an entire relationship. You can argue theologically how it’s still immoral or whatever, but just blatantly disbelieving me is rude.

 

[sw85]

(1) That’s not what narcissism is. “Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an excessive sense of self-importance, an extreme preoccupation with themselves, and lack of empathy for others.”

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#q=narcissism+definition

(2) Narcissism is a mental illness. It is not to be tossed around lightly.

(3) Rin was clearly quite hurt by a number of things you said. Is it grandstanding for someone to want you to see quite clearly that you are doing something wrong?

And if it IS grandstanding to show someone they are doing something wrong, haven’t you been grandstanding for much of this thread?

Just to be clear, “narcissism” is not conflatable with “narcissistic personality disorder.” That’s why it’s called “narcissistic” personality disorder, i.e., characterized by narcissism. It is simply what happens when a personality is deranged by narcissism.

Narcissism can be sub-clinical, i.e., non-pathological. It is a personality trait. Some people have more of it than others. It is simply the inability to transcend the self and relate to others meaningfully as others, rather than as tools for the benefit of oneself. It means a lack of self-emptying, of self-evacuation.

Tellingly, conversations with narcissists always seem to wind up – directly or indirectly – being about the narcissist in some way.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You can argue theologically.

Yet the provided documents from Pope Benedict and Pope Paul IV clearly state this is not a theological debate.

And in the same document he addressed the idea which you have a complete contrary view on…

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

 

[SMGS127]

Yet the provided documents from Pope Benedict and Pope Paul IV clearly state this is not a theological debate.

And in the same document he addressed the idea which you have a complete contrary view on…

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

Yes, and as is clearly stated throughout the document, “homosexual acts” refers to same-sex genital/sexual activity, hence “analogous to marriage” as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, and as is clearly stated throughout the document, “homosexual acts” refers to same-sex genital/sexual activity, hence “analogous to marriage” as well.

Yet nowhere in the quoted paragraph do these words appear. And again you assigned a lower likelihood to the evidence.

 

[SMGS127]

Yet nowhere in the quoted paragraph do these words appear. And again you assigned a lower likelihood to the evidence.

That’s because, earlier in the document, Cardinal Ratzinger repeatedly refers to homosexual acts as sexual acts and talks about how they are acts that are closed to new life, etc. Why should he repeat himself later in the document? Also, I may add that he says they are explicitly condemned in Scripture, and as we all know, Scripture condemns…same-sex sexual acts.

 

[GaryTaylor]

That’s because, earlier in the document, Cardinal Ratzinger repeatedly refers to homosexual acts as sexual acts and talks about how they are acts that are closed to new life, etc. Why should he repeat himself later in the document? Also, I may add that he says they are explicitly condemned in Scripture, and as we all know, Scripture condemns…same-sex sexual acts.

Its a completely separate Chapter-VIII

some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage

There is no possibility to procreate, and the purpose of marriage is to procreate. Which is why its disordered be it straight or gay without the possibility to procreate.

So knowing that there is no procreation than what is love analogous to marriage. In this case homosexual relations incapable of enduring a solitary life.