Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

[Rau]

…Do you believe anyone is incapable of OSA?

It is an observation that some people (asexual) report they experience no sexual attraction whatsoever. Does that incorporate the point of your question above?

The Church recognises asexuality, bisexuals, those suffering gender dysphoria (which is sometimes called transgendered), but it has had no cause to reference these by that name in the CCC. I imagine if it does so one day, you will kick off more threads?

 

[PRmerger]

The only groups of people the Church recognizes are male, female and the “homosexual person”

This is incorrect.

Right there in our Catechism are references to “baptized persons”, and “sick persons” and “human persons” and “divine persons”.

Look it up.

If we use your paradigm, we should be saying “I don’t believe in the baptized person. I only believe in male and female”.

Do you believe anyone is incapable of OSA?

God bless

I don’t know.

Now could you please address this:

But you still need to identify which is your paradigm, because right now you’re embracing both, and you cannot do this without being accused of having a double standard.

So choose one of these paradigms, please, and let us know which one you espouse:

“The Church doesn’t mention [A] prior to Date B, therefore this is not part of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith”

OR

“The Church doesn’t mention [A] prior to Date B, but I do not know if this was always part of the Sacred Deposit of the Faith.”

Which one is your paradigm?

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I believe the Magisterium is in error to claim a group of people experience exclusive SSA.

Then ignore that document as I have told you before!

Do you believe anyone is incapable of OSA?

Does it matter?!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… and SSA is an inclination to sin.

Only if sexualised, as is any other unchastity or lust also.

 

[jjr9]

I don’t know what you mean by “more than a temptation”.

Could you please explain this?

As far as I know the “homosexual person” is the only type of person the Church associates with
a specific temptation. Is exclusive SSA a unique temptation?

This is irrelevant.

I ask if you believe Satan is a real presence in the world or just some abstract idea as a frame
of reference. you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

The Church does not recognize them?

What do you mean? The Church says, “There is no such thing as a bisexual person”?

If so, could you please cite the document for this?

Are you saying the Church recognizes everything it doesn’t mention?

I believe the Church is doing a wonderful job with these groups.

Can you cite an example where Church teaching mentions “bisexual persons” or “transgender persons”?

You don’t believe they exist?

That is correct.

You seem to think that the Church is “encouraging people to embrace these false identities harmful to their souls”.

Unfortunately in the case of the “homosexual person” the Magisterium is doing this. While correctly condemning
the sinful behaviour.

The Church has been steadfast in her affirmation that homosexuality is disordered.

Thank God for that

So you can rest assured that the Church is not, nor will she ever encourage “people to embrace these false identities harmful to their souls”.

If only this was the case.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

As far as I know the “homosexual person” is the only type of person the Church associates with
a specific temptation.

The Church addresses all sorts of specific temptations–gluttony, pride, avarice, abuse of alcohol, tobacco, drugs. Very specific.

Is exclusive SSA a unique temptation?

Obviously, yes.

I ask if you believe Satan is a real presence in the world or just some abstract idea as a frame
of reference. you don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

I am still waiting for you to pick a paradigm (as I have asked already several times).

Are you saying the Church recognizes everything it doesn’t mention?

Can you cite an example where Church teaching mentions “bisexual persons” or “transgender persons”?

The Church doesn’t address all issues, but she certainly cannot deny the existence of bisexuals and transgenders. They do exist in reality. And as the Church is quite in touch with reality, she, by implication, recognizes their existence.

Unfortunately in the case of the “homosexual person” the Magisterium is doing this. While correctly condemning
the sinful behaviour.

Just like Jesus did.

 

[Rau]

The word “exclusive” in “exclusive SSA” points to what a person finds absent in his makeup, not something that is there. The phrase describes the lack of the experience of sexual attraction to the opposite sex in addition to the attraction to the same sex.

There is no science that tells us that a particular man will experience or must experience, or can experience sexual attraction to anyone. The etiology of sexual attraction is not known. There are scientifically observable and demonstrable “norms” for sure, and if one had never heard of SSA, one would never suppose that anyone would experience it.

But there are people who report experiencing no sexual attractions at all. Is this too a “temptation” of the devil? There is no theology that tells us that every man does or can experience sexual attractions to women, and that all instances to the contrary are due to the actions of the devil.

A man can tell us his experience is one of exclusive SSA. This does not mean he is continuously in a state of temptation. It means his sexual interests, when evident, seem to lie solely with other men. And when he is tempted sexually - those temptations run in the expected direction.

 

[jjr9]

The Church addresses all sorts of specific temptations–gluttony, pride, avarice, abuse of alcohol, tobacco, drugs. Very specific.

If you can present an instance where the Church identifies a type of person based on temptation
other that the “homosexual person” please do so.

Obviously, yes.

Why is it you think exclusive SSA a unique temptation that requires a new type of person?

I am still waiting for you to pick a paradigm (as I have asked already several times).

I will not be participating in your construct as it is based on a the false premise that the Assumption of Mary
and exclusive SSA are equivalent in regard to The Sacred Deposit of Faith. You start by hypothesizing that
the Church had not considered the Assumption of Mary prior the 1950 yet in the document you reference
itself refutes your claim.
Pope Pius XII says:
“These studies and investigations have brought out into even clearer light the fact that the dogma of the
Virgin Mary’s Assumption into heaven is contained in the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church.”
I trust you don’t believe Pope Pius XII a liar so for your construct to be valid you will have to present how
exclusive SSA is contained in “the deposit of Christian faith entrusted to the Church”.

Why won’t you share your view of Satan? I believe Satan a real and present danger for all of us.

The Church doesn’t address all issues, but she certainly cannot deny the existence of bisexuals and transgenders. They do exist in reality. And as the Church is quite in touch with reality, she, by implication, recognizes their existence.

What do you base your claim of the “existence of bisexuals and transgenders” a “psychological genesis”
that “remains largely unexplained”?

Just like Jesus did.

Is it your assertion that Jesus encouraged people to embrace false identities harmful to their souls?

My view on exclusive SSA is not dogmatic. If I see tangible proof of exclusive SSA or reference to exclusive
SSA in the Sacred Deposit of Faith; I will concede the point but these things do not exist, I have looked. I have
not been presented by anyone, anything of substance to support this exclusive SSA, just rationalization.

The reason I responded to you is that you could see that calling a tail a leg does not make the tail a leg.
Why do you accept the tall tail of exclusive SSA which has no leg to stand on?

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

I will not be participating in your construct as it is based on a the false premise that the Assumption of Mary
and exclusive SSA are equivalent in regard to The Sacred Deposit of Faith.

It’s actually a bigger question.

Please just answer it, independent of this discussion.

It’s not that difficult.

And you should have an answer, as a Catholic, to it.

Please respond.

 

[jjr9]

It’s actually a bigger question.

Please explain what you mean.

Please just answer it, independent of this discussion.

It’s not that difficult.

And you should have an answer, as a Catholic, to it.

Please respond.

I will not answer to what is incorrect you claim I hold two positions at once this is not the case.
If you believe it is please explain why so I can better explain myself?

I understand that my communications skills are lacking this is not your fault it is my flaw.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

Please explain what you mean.

I will not answer to what is incorrect you claim I hold two positions at once this is not the case.
If you believe it is please explain why so I can better explain myself?

I understand that my communications skills are lacking this is not your fault it is my flaw.

God bless

I just want to know how you approach the question of Catholic teaching that has not been professed by the magisterium until a specific date.

Do you say, “Since it was not documented until Date A, the Church never considered this until Date A”

Or do you say, “Since it was not documented until Date A, we can’t know what the Church believed about this issue prior to”.

This is the 3rd time I’ve presented this question to you.

Not sure why it’s been so difficult to get an answer for this.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jjr9
As far as I know the “homosexual person” is the only type of person the Church associates with a specific temptation.

The Church addresses all sorts of specific temptations–gluttony, pride, avarice, abuse of alcohol, tobacco, drugs. Very specific.

As a cap to be worn while it fits, only.

Quote:
Is exclusive SSA a unique temptation?

Obviously, yes.

No. It doesn’t matter whether it is exclusive or non-exclusive.

 

[PRmerger]

vvv

Would you mind not nesting your responses, Vic?

There’s many threads here which detail how to use the quote function properly.

Thanks.

At any rate, I can’t understand what your point is in the above response?

 

[jjr9]

I just want to know how you approach the question of Catholic teaching that has not been professed by the magisterium until a specific date.

Do you say, “Since it was not documented until Date A, the Church never considered this until Date A”

Or do you say, “Since it was not documented until Date A, we can’t know what the Church believed about this issue prior to”.

This is the 3rd time I’ve presented this question to you.

Not sure why it’s been so difficult to get an answer for this.

The difficulty is in answering categorically, I believe it best to address individual circumstances.
I am not a theologian and believe myself to be a good Catholic. My understanding is that the
Sacred Deposit of Faith was “entrusted to the Church” as Pope Pius XII said by the Lord. I
believe the Sacred Deposit of Faith includes the Old Testament, the New Testament and Sacred
Tradition till some early time in Church history.

I do not believe the Church is free to change the Sacred Deposit of Faith. I believe the Church is
free to come up with new teaching so long as it is true and does not contradict the Sacred Deposit
of Faith to contradict the Sacred Deposit of Faith would be to say it was not revealed by God and
that is not possible.

This is the best I can do for you.

Can you share your view of Satan for me?

What is it that causes you to believe in exclusive SSA?

God bless

 

[at9009]

What is it that causes you to believe in exclusive SSA?

God bless

We live in a broken world that is completely affected by original sin which leads to all manners of different kind of problems. We all have different manifestations which include different weakness to particular temptations.

How is it impossible for a person to be affected by the fall leading to exclusive SSA? I don’t really think that is a huge jump to make. Not everyone is called to marriage so I don’t see how its a completely unreasonable assertion.

It may or may not be exclusive for a person, I honestly don’t see how it is particular relevant. A large portion of Christians who adhere to a traditional sexual ethic who deal with SSA report no attraction to others of the opposite sex, some do have attraction, and some are even in marriages to others of the opposite sex. This just shows that a person’s vocation is different just as how different crosses aren’t quite the same either.

Edit for typos

 

[PRmerger]

The difficulty is in answering categorically, I believe it best to address individual circumstances.

No, it’s just a general question.

Why can’t you answer?

It’s quite simple: when the Catholic Church professes something on Date A, do you assume that this teaching came into existence on Date A?

I think the fact that you are recusant to answer demonstrates this fact (which you see quite clearly):

You hold an untenable position regarding the Church and homosexuality.

You will not answer the above very, very basic question, because it limns the double standard.

Thus, I think you need to re-evaluate your position that the Church “never considered” its teaching on SSA until 1960.

Otherwise, you call into question your adherence to the Church’s teaching on the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, the Trinity, etc etc etc…all of which were declared teaching on Date A, B, C, D, but which, of course, you know, were taught long before this.

QED

Case closed.

 

[jjr9]

We live in a broken world that is completely affected by original sin which leads to all manners of different kind of problems. We all have different manifestations which include different weakness to particular temptations.

How is it impossible for a person to be affected by the fall leading to exclusive SSA? I don’t really think that is a huge jump to make. Not everyone is called to marriage so I don’t see how its a completely unreasonable assertion.

It may or may not be exclusive for a person, I honestly don’t see how it is particular relevant. A large portion of Christians who adhere to a traditional sexual ethic who deal with SSA report no attraction to others of the opposite sex, some do have attraction, and some are even in marriages to others of the opposite sex. This just shows that a person’s vocation is different just as how different crosses aren’t quite the same either.

Edit for typos

I believe for the Magisterium to encourage confused individuals to believe that they are something
that doesn’t exist, the “homosexual person”, is just cruel and unhelpful for the salvation of that
persons soul.

God bless

 

[jjr9]

No, it’s just a general question.

Why can’t you answer?

It’s quite simple: when the Catholic Church professes something on Date A, do you assume that this teaching came into existence on Date A?

I think the fact that you are recusant to answer demonstrates this fact (which you see quite clearly):

You hold an untenable position regarding the Church and homosexuality.

You will not answer the above very, very basic question, because it limns the double standard.

Thus, I think you need to re-evaluate your position that the Church “never considered” its teaching on SSA until 1960.

Otherwise, you call into question your adherence to the Church’s teaching on the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, the Trinity, etc etc etc…all of which were declared teaching on Date A, B, C, D, but which, of course, you know, were taught long before this.

QED

Case closed.

As far as I know the Magisterium first mentions exclusive SSA in the new CCC in 1993. I
can understand you are unable to support your belief in exclusive SSA.

My presumption is you don’t believe Satan a real presence in the world.

God bless

 

[Rau]

As far as I know the Magisterium first mentions exclusive SSA in the new CCC in 1993. I
can understand you are unable to support your belief in exclusive SSA.

My presumption is you don’t believe Satan a real presence in the world.

God bless

Regrettably, your conclusion is unconnected with your starting point.

 

[Rau]

One wonders whether the Church mentioning the observation that some people experience an exclusive SSA is really the point. Had it not done so, had our observations always been that OSA does arise, but is significantly less evident than SSA in such persons, would we suddenly find no reason to refer to “homosexual persons”? Would jjr9 really be happy again by the simple omission of “exclusive”.

And what happens one day should the Church have cause to mention asexual persons, to defend their chosen single life, their right to be treated with dignity and so forth. Would this send jjr9 into a new tirade?

One wonders the real basis for jjr9’s position.