Wrong to Support LGBT?

  • Thread starter Thread starter xdz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t identify with Christ in that narrative. It’s not a parable. Christ could hang around the most wicked people all day long and not be affected in the slightest.
If anything we are the sinners in that passage, not Christ.
 
Last edited:
I would change disordered to something like not morally ordered or something like that. Means the same thing but the extra word adds context clues for those who are unfamiliar.
 
That’s what others have suggested. But if they’re Catholic, shouldn’t they already know? And if they’re not Catholic, who cares?
 
All we need to do is explain what “disordered” means in context then, yes?
Anyway, the change being pushed by an unnamed celebrity Catholic author and others is to “differently ordered.” And that, opens the box.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, the change being pushed by an unnamed celebrity Catholic author and others is to “differently ordered.” And that, opens the box.
Well those types of changes will probably be resisted since this is more of a clarification.
 
Last edited:
I hope so. I mean if I can figure out where “differently ordered” must inevitably lead, our Church leaders certainly can.
 
It can also act as a safeguard since the only possible reason to disagree with the clarification would be because they disagree and that would be harder to defend than it supposedly being insensitive.
 
Last edited:
“Morally Challenged”?

Now, you know, we say things about people, “they are physically challenged” and things like that. I don’t even want to get into the PC conversation about it.
 
Anyway, the change being pushed by an unnamed celebrity Catholic author and others is to “differently ordered.” And that, opens the box.
You bet it does! Fr Gerald Murray explains;
Father Martin rejects the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the “inclination” to “homosexual tendencies” is “objectively disordered” (2358). He writes:
“The phrase relates to the orientation, not the person, but it is still needlessly hurtful. Saying that one of the deepest parts of a person — the part that gives and receives love — is ‘disordered’ in itself is needlessly cruel” (pp. 46-47).

In a recent interview, he called for the use of the replacement phrase “differently ordered.” That would be a change in the Church’s teaching. It would mean that God created two different orders of sexual behavior that are both good and right according to his will: Some people are homosexual by God’s express design and some are heterosexual by God’s express design.

If that were the case, then homosexual acts themselves could no longer be described, as they are in the Catechism in Paragraph 2357, as “intrinsically disordered.” If the inclination is simply different, and not disordered, then acting upon that inclination is simply different, and not disordered. Homosexual activity would simply be natural behavior for “differently ordered” people.
 
Last edited:

I think the title of that NCR article should be…

Father Gerald E. Murray Proposes a Rewrite of Building A Bridge

Seriously, he has added so much interpretation and extrapolation, his review reads like a different book.
 
Last edited:
Homosexual activity would simply be natural behavior for “differently ordered” people
Yep
And at that point, how can the Church deny the Sacrament of Marriage to them?
Incremental goals. Just as it has played out in society at large and in a number of Protestant denominations.

Thanks for posting this!
 
Last edited:
They might take it mean as a mental disability. Maybe describing it as a temptation would be less ambiguous.
 
You can support them when it doesn’t conflict with God. Since homosexuality is a sin when acted on, you shouldn’t support them to act on it or if they have already done so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top