your opinions on gays

[rlg94086]

The CCC says, “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.” Man himself is inclined to do evil. And what do you understand by "the virtue of self-mastery’? It is not simply rhetoric. When you self-master something, the inclination to do evil for example, you strive to stop or end doing evil. The same is true with the inclination to disordered sexual desire. By self-mastery, the homosexual should strive to stop the inclination to disordered sexual desire.

Let me see if I can help you out here with your misunderstanding…

**2515 **Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. ***Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. ***The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, ***without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

---

I think you would agree that same sex attraction is a form of concupiscence, therefore it is not an offense in and of itself.

**1264 **Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ." Indeed, “an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.”
…
**2520 **Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

Therefore, we all have to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh. Have you rid yourself of all your concupiscence? No. You are struggling against it, just like goofyjim.

 

[agangbern]

No I’m not the Magesterium.
Do you have any more silly and sarcastic questions or are you all out?

There is no ‘understanding’ of the CCC. It simply is what is is.

Catechism means instruction, not ‘let me interpret it my way’.

I know that you are not the magesterium. I asked you that because you seem to pretend to be. Now, please be specific. What did I teach which you say is incorrect?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I know that you are not the magesterium. I asked you that because you seem to pretend to be. Now, please be specific. What did I teach which you say is incorrect?

You didn’t ‘teach’ anything. Most here have a complete understanding of the difference between ‘acting’ on homosexual attraction and the attraction itself.

What you attempted to ‘teach’ (I use that loosely) was that goofyjim was living against God’s will because he has homosexual attraction, which is patently wrong.

In doing so, you lost all compassion and charity and insulted him to the point he chose to place you on ignore.

 

[agangbern]

Let me see if I can help you out here with your misunderstanding…

2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.
I think you would agree that same sex attraction is a form of concupiscence, therefore it is not an offense in and of itself.

I think “same sex attraction” would not fit to be called concupiscence. Homosexual desire is not an intense desire but a “disordered sexual desire.”

 

[agangbern]

You didn’t ‘teach’ anything. Most here have a complete understanding of the difference between ‘acting’ on homosexual attraction and the attraction itself.

What you attempted to ‘teach’ (I use that loosely) was that goofyjim was living against God’s will because he has homosexual attraction, which is patently wrong.

In doing so, you lost all compassion and charity and insulted him to the point he chose to place you on ignore.

Your statements above just confirmed you quickness to make illogical conclusions.

 

[rlg94086]

I think “same sex attraction” would not fit to be called concupiscence. Homosexual desire is not an intense desire but a “disordered sexual desire.”

Again…

**2520 **Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

We “must continue” to struggle against both. Obviously, it would be great if we could rid ourselves of all our sinful desires, but you seem to be targeting one particular desire. Why is that?

 

[agangbern]

You are incorrect agangbern. The church does NOT teach that ‘disordered sexual desire’ is lust.

Really, the Church does not teach that? I thought you already read the CCC. Here:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

How about an apology to goofyjim for your insults?

You know I am not selfish when it comes to apology when it is due. But please be specific. What phrase or sentence have I said that is worth to be called an insult to him?

 

[rlg94086]

Really, the Church does not teach that? I thought you already read the CCC. Here:
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

So, the question begs to be asked…have you rid yourself of your sinful inclination to lust? Until you have, you really should not be going on-and-on about a person with SSA ridding themselves of their inclination to lust.

 

[agangbern]

Again…
2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

We “must continue” to struggle against both. Obviously, it would be great if we could rid ourselves of all our sinful desires, but you seem to be targeting one particular desire. Why is that?

It is clear from ccc2520 that “concupiscence” is distinct from “disordered desires” or else “disordered desires” should have simply been absorbed in the word concupiscence. There is no question to the fact that the baptized must continue to struggle against both. Struggle so that the disordered desire would what? So that it would continue to control man? Certainly not. Struggle so that the disordered desire, specially the topic, “gays”, which revolves on “disordered sexual desire”, would stop to control the victim. That is the goal of self-mastery.

 

[agangbern]

So, the question begs to be asked…have you rid yourself of your sinful inclination to lust? Until you have, you really should not be going on-and-on about a person with SSA ridding themselves of their inclination to lust.

Are you sincere in asking me that question? If so, then believe me if I tell you that I do not have that “disordered sexual desire” called lust.

 

[Wampa]

You didn’t ‘teach’ anything. Most here have a complete understanding of the difference between ‘acting’ on homosexual attraction and the attraction itself.

What you attempted to ‘teach’ (I use that loosely) was that goofyjim was living against God’s will because he has homosexual attraction, which is patently wrong.

In doing so, you lost all compassion and charity and insulted him to the point he chose to place you on ignore.

Bingo. You state what I suspect the large majority of silent readers of this thread understand.

 

[rlg94086]

Are you sincere in asking me that question? If so, then believe me if I tell you that I do not have that “disordered sexual desire” called lust.

Praise be to God! I have not rid myself of lust. It is a difficult trial for most. I am happy to hear that you don’t suffer that trial.

Have you rid yourself of all inclination toward sin? If not, then you shouldn’t be going on-and-on about other’s inclinations toward sin.

 

[goofyjim]

Thank you all for your support. It just goes to show what actually makes up the body of Christ. I do not need to be “taught” by anyone except the magisterium. All else is just opinion. I am a full Christian with homosexual attraction. I stay close to the Lord in prayer. He has simply consoled me that His grace is sufficient for me. If I cannot overcome the attractions it does not matter to Him.

 

[agangbern]

Bingo. You state what I suspect the large majority of silent readers of this thread understand.

You are very suspicious, huh?

 

[agangbern]

Praise be to God! I have not rid myself of lust. It is a difficult trial for most. I am happy to hear that you don’t suffer that trial.

Have you rid yourself of all inclination toward sin? If not, then you shouldn’t be going on-and-on about other’s inclinations toward sin.

Tell that to the good one who started this thread.

 

[rlg94086]

It is clear from ccc2520 that “concupiscence” is distinct from “disordered desires” or else “disordered desires” should have simply been absorbed in the word concupiscence. There is no question to the fact that the baptized must continue to struggle against both. Struggle so that the disordered desire would what? So that it would continue to control man? Certainly not. Struggle so that the disordered desire, specially the topic, “gays”, which revolves on “disordered sexual desire”, would stop to control the victim. That is the goal of self-mastery.

Stopping a “disordered desire” through self-mastery is not the same as ridding oneself of the inclination to that desire. I’m not sure why you don’t understand that.

In theory, you find the opposite sex attractive, correct? That in itself is not a sin. Lust, fornication and adultery are sins. In the same way, someone with SSA finds the same sex attractive. That attraction is objectively disordered, but it is not a sin in and of itself. Lust and homosexual acts are the sins.

 

[agangbern]

Thank you all for your support. It just goes to show what actually makes up the body of Christ. I do not need to be “taught” by anyone except the magisterium. All else is just opinion. I am a full Christian with homosexual attraction. I stay close to the Lord in prayer. He has simply consoled me that His grace is sufficient for me. If I cannot overcome the attractions it does not matter to Him.

Rest assured, goofyjim, I too would be behind you in your struggle.

 

[goofyjim]

In the interests of charity, as we all seem to confront one member, I request the mods close this thread.

 

[rlg94086]

Tell that to the good one who started this thread.

The person who started the thread appears to believe that homosexual acts are not sins, so why would I tell them the same thing I am telling you? They aren’t judging others’ inclinations to be more sinful than theirs as you seem to be.

 

[agangbern]

Stopping a “disordered desire” through self-mastery is not the same as ridding oneself of the inclination to that desire. I’m not sure why you don’t understand that.

In theory, you find the opposite sex attractive, correct? That in itself is not a sin. Lust, fornication and adultery are sins. In the same way, someone with SSA finds the same sex attractive. That attraction is objectively disordered, but it is not a sin in and of itself. Lust and homosexual acts are the sins.

I guess we just have to read again the CCC with sincere prayer of guidance from the Holy Spirit. Not our wish, but the will of the Holy Spirit must prevail.