Anyways, to sequey back on to the subject at hand, it is obvious that Galileo and Copernicus could not have had a homosexual relationship (and dragging Galileo into the conversation is a sure sign of losing the argument) so, let’s just leave him alone, and get back to the subject.
OOOOH, an Astrophobe.Wow! I didn’t read the whole thread, but you two guys are really confusing me on this Galileo and Copernicus thing. Does that make me an Astrophobe?
They theories were similar and they were different. It’s all relative. Copernicus was a Doctor of Canon Law and a Bishop, so of course nothing could happen to him. Plus his ideas were nearly 100 years away from Galileos. Galileo was subjected to a different Catholic Regime then was Copernicus. Galileo was local to Italy and Corpernicus was far away in Poland or somewhere thereabouts.
okay. But not today, time to go home to my wife and son.Anyways, to sequey back on to the subject at hand, it is obvious that Galileo and Copernicus could not have had a homosexual relationship (and dragging Galileo into the conversation is a sure sign of losing the argument) so, let’s just leave him alone, and get back to the subject.
Except it is a sin to act upon that homosexualness. One day that will change as well. I don’t look forward to it personally but it is the enevitable track of progression.It is [contrary to popular belief] not sinful to be homosexual.
The Catholic Church recognises that many of her children have homosexual tendencies. They are as acceptable before Christ as heterosexuals
Anyone who thinks otherwise is bigotted and lacks charity
Excellent summary. This is really all that is needed for defense of these types of accusations, but of course we must show Catholic compassion doing so.
But on another thread, it is stated that masturbation is a mortal sin…hmm…go figure…It is [contrary to popular belief] not sinful to be homosexual.
The Catholic Church recognises that many of her children have homosexual tendencies. They are as acceptable before Christ as heterosexuals
Anyone who thinks otherwise is bigotted and lacks charity
Bzzzt! Wrong! The Catholic Church does not teach any such thing:It is [contrary to popular belief] not sinful to be homosexual.
The Catholic Church recognises that many of her children have homosexual tendencies. They are as acceptable before Christ as heterosexuals
Anyone who thinks otherwise is bigotted and lacks charity
How is he wrong? So the CCC states that it’s *disordered *- this does not mean it’s wrong or a sin to be a homosexual. The act, yes. Not the state of being.
That will not ever change. The Bible and the traditions of the Church cannot ever change in that regard! Secular society may change, but the Church is outside of time.
I believe having SSA can be the result of sin and the cause of more sin, but not sinful in itself.How is he wrong? So the CCC states that it’s *disordered *- this does not mean it’s wrong or a sin to be a homosexual. The act, yes. Not the state of being.
Are you saying that just by having SSA is sinful? If so, I think you’re wrong.
Certain acts are always evil no matter who is the actor or the evaluator.
I do not know what information you claim to have? The inclination is a disorder in that it is not ordered to a correct end. It is a philosophical understanding.
Homophobia is a contrived slogan used to intimidate folks into silence.
Please let us not confuse issues of discipline with natural moral law which never changes.
We must be careful not to fall into the heresy of modernism. Truth does not change with time.
Modern man would say the acts of executing heretics was evil committed by the CC. But during the executions it was considered a righteous act.
The American Psychiatric Association no longer considers homosexuality a disorder…columbia.thefreedictionary.com/homosexualism
And it works fairly well in most cases, since most are not equipped to handle the charge.
No confusion. Moral law is gray area and will always be. And moral natural law is even more gray. Armpit hair, leg hair, and armpit odor are still natural law issues with the Orthodox Jews, they have become something else to us because of cultural changes of modernism. I asked these specific questions of a Rabbi once when I was delving into the culture of Judaism. Several Rabbis I questioned stated that a true Jew will not do any thing that circumvent God’s original design of us. When pressed for examples, he gave the examples I gave earlier. Men and Women are not to shave at all nor are they to mask the armpit odor and other things that would disgust the modern man and woman.
No problem there. The RCC is just failing to understand that the APA no longer declassifies it as a disorder.
When did the Church ever execute folks? I know that the civil authorities executed, but when did the Church execute She may have decided if they were guilty but they were turned over to the state for punishment? BTW, at the time the Church courts were needed and the civil authorities were within their rights to keep the civil order.
The Church does not decide what is a mental disorder. She does decide what is a spiritual or philosophical disorder. The distinction is important. And the APA is hardly correct in all their discernment in various issues. There is a long history of political nuancing and other variables that are involved in these issues. Many think it is a type of mental disorder, but that is a separate issue.
Please offer proof. The Church says the etiology is uncertain. In any event no matter the genesis the acts are immoral and the inclination is a disorder in the philosophical understanding.
Agreed.
Natural law has nothing to do with biologic issues. It is referring to the natural moral law as in the 10 commandments.
The Rabbi does not understand the Catholic view of natural moral law.
This is incorrect. The use of the word disorder by the Church has nothing to do with what the APA says or does not say. The inclination is disordered. The end desired is not consistent with what God has designed. The APA is incompetent to judge what is moral and what is immoral. There is no scientific method to decide if friendship is good, if sex outside marriage is bad, if homosexual acts are immoral, if abortion is wrong, or anything of the sort. The proof is philosophical. The proof is found through faith and reason. The proof is not found under a microscope, or in meta analyses, or in Koch’s postulates. The scientific method is great for science, not for determining what is God’s will for us.
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
I agree with the above statement but I wish to add that I think parents and society as a whole should differentiate between the individual homosexual and the HOMOSEXUAL as a political force. The homosexual act is less destructive then the act of adultery. In the simplest form One effects two people the affects many more people. The Political HOMOSEXUAL is athiestic and bent on the destruction of God and his revelation. (go to one of their sites this is evident). Adultery dose not have that political atheistic adjenda.