C
clem456
Guest
Why do you beat your head against the wall?
Doesn’t it hurt?
- Status
Doesn’t it hurt?
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
***JJR9, please can you:
You won’t persuade everybody. So why fuss.***
- refer other thread members such as Clem and PRmerger to the previous threads where a number of other forum members, including myself, provided informative responses at considerable trouble.
- provide your own informative arguments, at each occurrence.
You won’t persuade everybody. So why fuss.***
R
Rau
Guest
Unfortunately, his dislike for the shorthand label “homosexual person” has led him to go on and assert many far less defensible claims.
J
jjr9
Guest
The Magisterium claims a group of people have an exclusive SSA aka the mythical “homosexualHuh? Homosexual persons are mythical?
person”. I believe this to be an error by the Magisterium.
I believe SSA is real a temptation, SS behavior is real a sin and exclusive SSA is a myth.
Can you tell me a rational reason to accept this mythical “homosexual person” or how it is in harmony
with the Sacred Deposit of Faith?
I believe the concept of exclusive SS attraction was not considered by the Church prior to 1960 or
so. Do you agree?
God bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah.
I suppose it’s no more rational than accepting your premise, no?
I believe that it’s a myth to say that the homosexual person is a myth.
So now where do we go from here?
I think this is similar to the objection that Protestants make erroneously when they say, “I believe the concept of the Assumption of Mary was not considered by the Church prior to 1950 or so”.
The Church makes pronouncements as issues/questions arise.
This is not to be misconstrued as: therefore the Church never considered this prior
C
clem456
Guest
Your belief the Magisterium is in error does not make it so.
It’s your opinion. That’s it.
Everyone has an opinion, no problem. But it is problematic for a Catholic to call the Magisterium out for “errors”.
If you were a Protestant or some other religion you would be expected to have divergent opinions from the Magisterium.
But as a self identifying Catholic, you may want to speak to your priest about this issue.
(By issue I mean pride, not the ssa person thing.)
J
jjr9
Guest
If you believe that a group of people experience exclusive SSA you could provide your rational reason.
I am at a disadvantage I do not know how prove that something does not exist.
You could explain how exclusive SSA is in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
St. Paul teaches on this issue in Romans 1:24-28:
24Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation
of their bodies. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather
than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions.
Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27and the males likewise gave up natural relations
with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received
in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28And since they did not see fit to acknowledge
God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
I cannot comprehend the Magisterium spreading the lie that a group of people “experience an exclusive…
sexual attraction toward person of the same sex” for Satan. Satan is a compelling liar. For the Magisterium
to teach what is inconsistent with St. Paul’s teaching without absolute proof is wrong.
I believe the Assumption of Mary is in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith exclusive SSA is not.
God bless
C
clem456
Guest
Then you should be running screaming from the Catholic Church.
Why are you not running to some other Church if you believe the Church is the tool of Satan?
Honestly, you make no sense, other than you are satisfying your raging pride.
E
edwest2
Guest
There are no people who experience exclusive SSA?
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Ed
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
Ed
J
jjr9
Guest
This does not address exclusive SSA it was written in 1986. The Magisterium did not accept exclusive SSA
aka the mythical “homosexual person” till the new CCC in the early 1990’s.
God bless
P
PRmerger
Guest
Are you of the position that the Church only considered the Assumption of Mary in 1950?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t believe “homosexual person” = “a person who experiences exclusive SSA”.
Are you using these 2 terms interchangeably?
This is an odd assertion given your premise that the homosexual person does not exist.
Are you now wishing to retract this statement?
Wha??? Who is saying that?
Any person who says that SSA is not a disordered attraction has departed from the kerygma and ought to reassess his views.
M
Midwest88
Guest
You can let people “live and let live” without the federal government legalizing same-sex “marriage.” The reasoning of “if you go by ‘live and let live’ then allowing same-sex unions is fine” is fallacious
Wasn’t civil unions proposed, but rejected by those who wanted federal government to mandate it?
Wasn’t civil unions proposed, but rejected by those who wanted federal government to mandate it?
R
Rau
Guest
I believe he holds to the idea that because, within the “sacred deposit of faith”, one does not find reference to a person “experiencing exclusive SSA”, then there is no justification to believe that a person could ever experience exclusive SSA.
How he arrives at this conclusion, given the endless catalog of conditions that afflict man and do not get a mention in the S.D. of F., I cannot say.
M
Midwest88
Guest
It’s only brought up when marriage is talked about. It’s not an obsession, It’s a concern.
In America there’s an agenda. You don’t live in America, so try to look at it from the American Catholic perspective.
Yes there is. It paints a false reality of marriage. If you have kids, what are you going to tell them? That same-sex “marriage” is equally as wonderful and fruitful as (real) marriage? How are you going to defend the faith besides “Well, that’s the Church’s teachings, but there’s no issue with gay marriage.”
Good luck.
The poster is being smart a_s, appealing to the Jewish star on how Nazis identified Jews. Of course the atheist never actually addressed the Church teaching, just thought it was irrational and mean and therefore felt the urge to write what he wrote. He’s a typical modern Gnu.
P
pnewton
Guest
If nothing else, I see there is at least a kernel of truth in the first post. There is a type of anti-gay sentiment that does need to be resisted, whether it be the protestant fundamentalism of Westboro, or the Catholic version that picks part of the Church teaching on the sin of homosexuality while rejecting the Church’s teaching on human dignity and unjust discrimination.
J
jjr9
Guest
Your view is not clear to me.
In this section of the Catechism 2357 I believe the Magisterium defines “homosexuality”:
“Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive
… sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.”
Code:
I leave out the words “or predominant”, for me they are not quantifiable, this just makes thepersons of the same sex” precludes an attraction toward persons of the opposite sex. I understand
that one can put a time constraint on an exclusivity the Church does not in this case. To the contrary
the Church accepts a new type of person the “homosexual person”. My understanding is that until
this “new” teaching the only type of persons that the Church has recognized are male and female
created by the Lord for the gift of procreation.
What do you believe the Magisterium is saying here?
My pursuit of Truth, a very Catholic idea, is not a “contempt for Catholicism”.
God bless
C
clem456
Guest
A couple of words to consider:
obedience
docility
good faith
I struggle with em too but it’s a necessary part of the Christian life
J
JB_Brother_4446
Guest
If you don’t believe in what the Magisterium says, then why don’t you leave the Church? Although the Apostles condemned homosexuality, they never condemned people with SSA. Jesus said to cut off inclination to sin, and SSA is an inclination to sin.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Would you mind answer the question, jjr?
NB: this is indeed on topic in that the assertion has been made that the Church’s stand against Anti-Gay sentiment is false due to the fact that there is no such thing as a homosexual person, due to the fact that this term was “only considered” around 1960…and the refutation is being offered by offering, as analogy, the dogma on the Assumption, which was proclaimed in 1950.
- Status