The Church needs to change - but not in the way they all say

[MarysLittleFlower]

Aggravating indeed.

Everyone just let it go about the SSA thing. Personally to me I prefer using that term, as to me, the term "homosexual" is like making it ones identity. Like if I had SSA I'd probably use that term rather than homosexual. But Franciscanheart is not implying any disagreement with the Church with her use of the word and has a different reason, which is perhaps personal to her. Of all the topics to argue over the internet is this really one? It seems like a linguistic difference here rather than ideological about Church teaching. Someone might agree more with the term SSA - fine but franciscanheart isn't trying to debate Church ideas in her intent - it just doesn't seem helpful to have these debates about language when the issue is a personal preference. We all know its a personal reason - just let it be.. 

Edited July 16, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[puellapaschalis]

Except that there is a difference between using one or the other: it's about the implications each term makes about the nature of being (sexually) attracted to people of the same sex. They're not perfect synonyms. 

[Ice_nine]

say what you will about identity and implications and all that but saying someone "has SSA" sounds really stupid.

[franciscanheart]

ho·mo·sex·u·al

ˌhōməˈsekSH(əw)əl/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

    

 

gay

ɡā/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   (of a person, especially a man) homosexual.

   "that friend of yours, is he gay?"

   synonyms:

   homosexual, lesbian;  informalqwerty "gay men and women"

   •  

      
2. 2.

   lighthearted and carefree.

   "Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face"

 

What have I missed that makes these words mean different things? Same sex attraction means someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex. Someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex is homosexual. An alternate word for homosexual is gay. What am I missing?

[Ash Wednesday]

 

Off to the debate table with ye all...be nice. 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

from what I understand this is not the Church teaching and the Church is against civil unions too... Can someone respond? My understanding is that its a condemned view that the state should be able to decide morality or marriage without the Church. Here's a quote from the CDF no less... The CDF can officially speak for Church teaching more than any catechesis program that can make mistakes : 

 

With that idea than the church is against all civil unions not just the homosexual ones, because it is not a marriage sanctioned by the church.

 

 

Often you are correct but on this point your actually wrong. Go ask a priest love, actually ask 3 to be sure. In fact someone go put this question on the Catholic Q & A, and i want to see one of the priest responses. There is always a priest present at catechisis and i vocalized my understanding in front of the whole group and he didn't rebuke me.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

With that idea than the church is against all civil unions not just the homosexual ones, because it is not a marriage sanctioned by the church.

Often you are correct but on this point your actually wrong. Go ask a priest love, actually ask 3 to be sure. In fact someone go put this question on the Catholic Q & A, and i want to see one of the priest responses. There is always a priest present at catechisis and i vocalized my understanding in front of the whole group and he didn't rebuke me.

Non Catholics can and do contract valid natural marriages, witnessed by civil authority. If your priest agreed with your own interpretations then he is also wrong.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 

Non Catholics can and do contract valid natural marriages, witnessed by civil authority. If your priest agreed with your own interpretations then he is also wrong.

I never said he agreed i said he didn't rebuke me. Why are you always right? Are you God, and i retract my statement about you often being right it is actually you are often half right.  What is natural marriage to the church anyway? Buddhists do it, pagans do it, athiests do it, that is the world, get over it, there not catholic, it is there business. Sometimes love is cold babe, get over it!

[Nihil Obstat]

I never said he agreed i said he didn't rebuke me. Why are you always right? Are you God, and i retract my statement about you often being right it is actually you are often half right.  What is natural marriage to the church anyway? Buddhists do it, pagans do it, athiests do it, that is the world, get over it, there not catholic, it is there business. Sometimes love is cold babe, get over it!

You have problems, dude. You need to sort yourself out.

[KnightofChrist]

say what you will about identity and implications and all that but saying someone "has SSA" sounds really stupid.

It is neither stupid or really stupid. We all are tempted to commit sin but we do not all define ourselves by what sins tempt us. We do not define our being by sins that tempt us when we remain in the state of grace and do not act upon that temptation or entertain it. For example if a married man is tempted to think impure thoughts of an attractive woman who is not his wife, but does not act on nor entertain those thoughts, is it wise for him to define himself as an adulterer? It doesn't make much sense to define himself like that if he is in the state of grace and avoiding the temptation.

We are human beings with temptations (whether that be SSA or adultery, or any other sin), we are even human beings who sin. But our beings are not defined by our temptations. Our beings certainly are not defined by past sins after we have repented and abandon those sins. Saying someone has SSA isn't stupid it's a way to acknowledge that they are first a person, a person with a certain temptation that can be avoided and is not so powerful and unstoppable as to define their very being.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Except that there is a difference between using one or the other: it's about the implications each term makes about the nature of being (sexually) attracted to people of the same sex. They're not perfect synonyms. 

i agree with you for the reasons that Knight gave above. To me yes there is a difference. If we were discussing which term is more accurate I'd say SSA - for reasons given above. (To not identify self with thoughts or feelings you get). However the reason I suggested to let it go right now is because the discussion was not about what is more accurate .. Franciscanheart I think - at least based on her post - just sees the term homosexual in the dictionary way of someone who has these attractions. What I mean is I think her reasons are more personal than theological statements on this. Theologically I think the term SSA makes more sense to me. But I don't think the discussion was about that initially .. Now various posters are discussing what is more accurate but I'm not sure this is the thread for that.  I don't know this thread is just very polarized now with two sides arguing each other... I'm trying to connect it together somehow maybe unsuccessfully... 

Edited July 17, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[MarysLittleFlower]

With that idea than the church is against all civil unions not just the homosexual ones, because it is not a marriage sanctioned by the church.

Often you are correct but on this point your actually wrong. Go ask a priest love, actually ask 3 to be sure. In fact someone go put this question on the Catholic Q & A, and i want to see one of the priest responses. There is always a priest present at catechisis and i vocalized my understanding in front of the whole group and he didn't rebuke me.

maybe it depends on the priest. The Church teaching doesn't change though. The Church considers non Catholic marriages valid because they are according to natural law. Homosexual unions are not. Church marriages have the addition of being a Sacrament but marriages that are non Sacramental can still be valid between non Catholics. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

You have problems, dude. You need to sort yourself out.

you have a bad attitude, maybe we can have some privy council and find out where it is coming from? Stay awake yo coz the beast is prowling around like a lion looking for someone to devour, and it loves attitudes like yours to crush and frustrate, just be careful man and stop playing me for an idiot please. God made the blacksmith and can destroy the blacksmith, watch it.

and nihil your post on what benedict XVI said is all about marriage not civil union, he uses the word marriage. I also don't believe homosexuals should be married. The only marriage i or you or any christian should recognise as sacramental, insoluble and natural is a christian marriage or jewish marriage. The rest of the world doesn't have the same views as us. Standing against them we will crush, only being salt, light and unleavened bread will address the problem. And i know you may think or feel i am twisting benedicts words but he continually says marriage, civil unions aren't marriage in the light of the truth, there not binding, and there you go i will say it again NOT BINDING, THEREFORE ILLICIT AND NOT MARRIAGE! I may be wrong.

*typo* 'STANDING AGAINST THEM WE WILL GET CRUSHED'

Edited July 17, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I wan't to hear what the phatmass priests have to say. And just to be clear i am neither for or against it civil unions that is, it is outside of my jurisdiction and a matter for the world to deal with before GOD and since i am in the world and not of the world i honestly don't care , but inside the christian context yes i am against it, never should homosexual couples be married by a priest.

<time out flood warning though the extra add on bit after edit time out is much better>  Hand them over to the devil and let it burn, GOD will be there judge according to there knowledge and understanding of what is truth. Stnading against them will only aggravate them in the worlds present climate and alienate them completely from what the church believes and teaches.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Papist]

What good do you intend to bring about by antagonizing me about this?

My intent is not to antagonize or aggravate. I asked a simple question in lieu of trying to understand.  I have a habit of asking simple questions (well simple in my mind) in order to be able to properly make an assessment.  It seems most of the time you reply with the understanding that I am trying to antagonize, to which I was referring as aggravating...but it is more so frustrating. Believe it or not, my motive is not to tear you down. I am sorry and I apologize if I offended you and/or caused you any distress. In the future, I will refrain from asking you questions.

Everyone just let it go about the SSA thing. Personally to me I prefer using that term, as to me, the term "homosexual" is like making it ones identity. Like if I had SSA I'd probably use that term rather than homosexual. But Franciscanheart is not implying any disagreement with the Church with her use of the word and has a different reason, which is perhaps personal to her. Of all the topics to argue over the internet is this really one? It seems like a linguistic difference here rather than ideological about Church teaching. Someone might agree more with the term SSA - fine but franciscanheart isn't trying to debate Church ideas in her intent - it just doesn't seem helpful to have these debates about language when the issue is a personal preference. We all know its a personal reason - just let it be.. 

I do not care what word/term is used. I believe it is vital to a conversation that everyone has the same understanding of the words/terms being used.

A person can use a word and someone's understanding of that word may be different than his/hers.  Conversation continues with each person believing that the other has his/hers understanding. I believe this is a serious error b/c there is the potential for the two to walk away believing the other person believes something that he/she does not...and may tell others.

 

[Maggyie]

I think if you're going to use the term same sex attracted, then spell it and say it out. Giving it initials makes it sound like a wart someone has. Properly, people do not "have" same sex attraction, they "are" same sex attracted. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Papist, I see you're trying to clarify! Maggyie, sure there's no problem with it being spelled out. We can also say someone who is attracted to the same sex. However I'm having a bit of trouble understanding why you say we shouldn't describe them as having an attraction. I mean I don't see attractions as an essence of a person. In the end they are something we have .. If Jessica has an attraction to John, can't we put it like that? Is it different if we are specifying types ofpeople one feels attacted to? I think some people who are Catholic and are attracted to the same sex may want to not identify themselves by that and talk about it more as thoughts they get, because they are trying to not consent to them. Others prefer the other term while also not identifying themselves primarily through that and also being faithful to the Church. So reasons can be personal without a theological disagreement. (Other times a disagreement can be there). But I think objectively, what is wrong with preferring or using the term "having" an attraction? 

Edited July 17, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Not The Philosopher]

This terminological debate is rather fascinating and in no way boring or dull after having been repeated 1 billion times here at Phatmass and at other places of the internet.

While we can indeed argue that one form of self-labeling is more appropriate than others, when you try to constantly police people about this, you'll usually just get pushback because you come across as scrutinizing them for faults, even if you are well-intentioned (as I think everyone here is).

[truthfinder]

I wan't to hear what the phatmass priests have to say. And just to be clear i am neither for or against it civil unions that is, it is outside of my jurisdiction and a matter for the world to deal with before GOD and since i am in the world and not of the world i honestly don't care , but inside the christian context yes i am against it, never should homosexual couples be married by a priest.

 

Look, I really don't want to get into a debate, but your understanding of what the church teaches on natural marriage is flawed.  Obviously, sacramental marriage is better, but a true natural marriage IS marriage. 

This is from wikipedia, but correctly cites the appropriate canons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_marriage "Natural marriage is the name given in Catholic canon law to the covenant "by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring", and is distinguished from a sacramental or Christian marriage, in which the two parties involved are baptized^[1][2][3] or Christian marriage.^[3][4]"

[MarysLittleFlower]

This terminological debate is rather fascinating and in no way boring or dull after having been repeated 1 billion times here at Phatmass and at other places of the internet.

While we can indeed argue that one form of self-labeling is more appropriate than others, when you try to constantly police people about this, you'll usually just get pushback because you come across as scrutinizing them for faults, even if you are well-intentioned (as I think everyone here is).

Yea I think its best to just leave it. In any case I'm leaving it.