Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

[Rau]

I find talking about alcoholism ect. a distraction because the Church does not address these temptations individually

Abuse of alcohol and tobacco is mentioned in ccc2290.

…and the Magisterium does not claim these temptations exclusive.

I know of no case where a person’s attraction to, say, alcohol is exclusive of their attraction to any other form of drink. So not surprising such is not referenced.

The important point here is that what the Magisterium [wants] to claim is not objectively true, that a group of people experience an exclusive SSA, to be sure SSA is a struggle for many.

They don’t so much “claim” it as acknowledge it. Nevertheless, you express here a personal opinion about what other people experience, quite dogmatically, shunning the testimony of those people, and with no evidence for your position. For sure, some who experience SSA exclusively later discover the condition is not permanently thus.

Is SSA attraction some sort of super temptation that prevents OSA and the Grace of Our Lord is not sufficient for those who prefer OSA to overcome? I do not believe this.

I don’t know what you mean here. Are there persons (men, say) who tell us that they experience no sexual attraction at all to women? I think there are. Why do you assert they are lying? No one here, nor the Church, says that this experience cannot change, be that through a treatment of some kind, or through prayer or through psychological development of some kind. Many claim to have overcome it, but without denying the experience they endured.

The Vatican site has the NAB 2002 edition which has the same language as the NAB 1986 edition. The implication being that St. Paul recognized that there are non practicing “homosexuals” aka the mythical “homosexual person”.

The term “homosexual” may be applied whether or not one “practices”. Do you believe there are persons who experience SSA but do not embrace it and strive to live a chaste life? I do. Did St Paul know this too? I have no idea. What we do know is that such persons enjoy God’s favour.

 

[Rau]

NAB 1970 edition

"… nor sodomites”

NAB 1986 edition

"…nor practicing homosexuals”

A sodomite is judged such by what he does, not what he experiences. The sin lies only in human acts. Thus, these translations seem fairly consistent. “Practicing homosexual” is today’s language for that which would be sinful. Paul may have simply referred to “men laying with men” - that he said this says nothing about whether he was aware of men who experienced such a desire but avoided the acts. The 1986 translation also makes no such implication.

Further, the sins of practicing homosexuals are wider than acts we might call “sodomy”, suggesting the 86 translation better reflects the moral truths.

I see in your condemnation of the bible translation the same kind of mischaracterisations as in your condemnation of the Catechism. They suggest you search out an “angle” from which to condemn - as one who has a vendetta might do.