Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zeldarocks2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jjr9 said:
Do you agree that the Magisterium should correct it’s error?

Do you think anyone is incapable of OSA? I do not.

Do you think the Magisterium should recognize “homosexual persons”, “bisexual persons”,
“transgender persons” and any other type of “persons” that people self-identify as? I do not.

God bless
Click to expand...
I think you should either A. make up your mind or B. Try to be more coherent in your posts
 
jjr9 said:
Do you believe anyone experiences exclusive SSA?

God bless
Click to expand...
I believe that some people experience exclusive SSA. Certainly, lots of gay men say that this is the case, so why shouldn’t we take their word for it?
 
JimmyG88 said:
No. in the same way I do not believe that some heterosexual people haven’t had some SSA occasionally either
Click to expand...
So you believe someone with exclusive SSA can have OSA. How is this possible?

God bless
 
JimmyG88 said:
No. in the same way I do not believe that some heterosexual people haven’t had some SSA occasionally either
Click to expand...
Putting it another way: We cannot say that a person experiencing SSA and no OSA (i.e. “Exclusive SSA”) will always have this experience; i.e., always fail to experience OSA.
 
JB_Brother_4446 said:
Show me a Cathecism quote. Then I’ll believe you.
Click to expand...
CCC:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive
or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

I believe the “predominant group” should be referred to as “bisexual persons”, if the Magisterium wants to
consistently adhere to some of the tenets of the LGBT orthodoxy. I believe the Magisterium has taken the
wrong path and should repent.

What is your view? I believe the Magisterium is in error to make this claim.

God bless
 
jjr9 said:
CCC:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive
or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

I believe the “predominant group” should be referred to as “bisexual persons”, if the Magisterium wants to
consistently adhere to some of the tenets of the LGBT orthodoxy. I believe the Magisterium has taken the
wrong path and should repent.

What is your view? I believe the Magisterium is in error to make this claim.

God bless
Click to expand...
So does the Deposit of Faith have something about referring to people as “bisexual persons”?
 
Thorolfr said:
So does the Deposit of Faith have something about referring to people as “bisexual persons”?
Click to expand...
Of course not the “bisexual person” is as mythical as the “homosexual person” and the
“transgender person”. I can assure you that God’s plan for any person does not include
perverted sexuality. Each person has freewill and can separate themselves from God’s
Will. I am confident the Lord will have the Magisterium correct it’s error in His Time.

God bless
 
jjr9 said:
Of course not the “bisexual person” is as mythical as the “homosexual person” and the
“transgender person”. I can assure you that God’s plan for any person does not include
perverted sexuality. Each person has freewill and can separate themselves from God’s
Will. I am confident the Lord will have the Magisterium correct it’s error in His Time.

God bless
Click to expand...
I thought that the Magisterium is infallible and can’t be in error.
 
Thorolfr said:
I didn’t say that the Pope is always infallible. I said I thought that the Magisterium is infallible unless you’re claiming that the Pope and the Magisterium are one and the same thing.
Click to expand...
I think you know the answer here Thor. Almost all infallible teachings were not explicitly proclaimed as such. Their infallibility arises otherwise than by explicit proclamation.

As to jjr9, he is having some difficulty distinguishing what is Catholic teaching and what is a worldly observation. That there are people who experience SSA absent any OSA is in the latter category. There is substantial evidence that their experience is real, yet it is so far unexplained. And it does not run counter to any tenet of the faith. That these people might be called “homosexual persons” is a language choice, a shorthand even, and also not a religious teaching.
 
Thorolfr said:
I didn’t say that the Pope is always infallible. I said I thought that the Magisterium is infallible unless you’re claiming that the Pope and the Magisterium are one and the same thing.
Click to expand...
The Pope is the head the Magisterium, the Vicar of Christ, and infallible statements can only be
made by the Pope. It appears that only two infallible statements have been made by the head of
the Magisterium, the Pope.

If you believe otherwise please supply a reference.

God bless
 
jjr9 said:
The Pope is the head the Magisterium, the Vicar of Christ, and infallible statements can only be made by the Pope. It appears that only two infallible statements have been made by the head of the Magisterium, the Pope.
Click to expand...
My goodness! Is it your understanding that the only organ of infallibility exercisable by the Church is an ex-cathedra statement by the Pope?

Now, given your running dispute with the Magisterium, I’m not sure what stock you would place in any statement from the Magisterium, but here is one from Lumen Gentium, a product of Vatican II:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.*

There are 3 organs by which infallibility is exercised. Papal ex Cathedral statements are rare - historically, arising only when an important matter of faith and morals was in dispute and needed settling.

See: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Especially ch 3.

As explained to you many times, the doctrinal content that we are obligated to believe is more limited than the full statements that may contain them. Same sex sexual relations are morally wrong. That is doctrine. The obligation to treat everyone with respect and love is doctrine. Questions such as the etiology of SSA, whether OSA can be reignited in a person who does not experience it, the “permanence” or otherwise of SSA, whether “homosexual persons” is a good descriptor for persons with a particular experience of sexual attractions, are all unaddressed by the Church (and of no moral significance) - we are free to hold whatever opinion seems reasonable to us.
 
Rau said:
My goodness! Is it your understanding that the only organ of infallibility exercisable by the Church is an ex-cathedra statement by the Pope?

Now, given your running dispute with the Magisterium, I’m not sure what stock you would place in any statement from the Magisterium, but here is one from Lumen Gentium, a product of Vatican II:

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.*

There are 3 organs by which infallibility is exercised. Papal ex Cathedral statements are rare - historically, arising only when an important matter of faith and morals was in dispute and needed settling.

See: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Especially ch 3.

As explained to you many times, the doctrinal content that we are obligated to believe is more limited than the full statements that may contain them. Same sex sexual relations are morally wrong. That is doctrine. The obligation to treat everyone with respect and love is doctrine. Questions such as the etiology of SSA, whether OSA can be reignited in a person who does not experience it, the “permanence” or otherwise of SSA, whether “homosexual persons” is a good descriptor for persons with a particular experience of sexual attractions, are all unaddressed by the Church (and of no moral significance) - we are free to hold whatever opinion seems reasonable to us.
Click to expand...
I make no claim to be expert in Church teaching you are correct that what I presented only
pertains to an ex-cathedra statement by the Pope. Thank you for the clarification. See:
catholic.com/quickquestions/which-church-teachings-have-been-declared-infallible

CCC 2357:
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive
or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

Do you believe this to be infallible teaching of the Church? I do not.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top