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

[franciscanheart]

I definitely push back when someone attempts to direct me in how I can and cannot describe my human experience. Certainly my patience for this behavior is much more limited after a number of arguments about the issue on this site. Consider that the debate seems centered around bloated meaning that strays far from the dictionary definitions and you can imagine how much more frustrating this ridiculous insistence becomes.

[Ice_nine]

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.

Hmm, I guess I should say I'm not a straight person. Wouldn't consider myself gay either but if anyone wanted to foist a label, like bi-sexual or SSSSA (sometimes sexually same sex attracted, if we're going for accuracy) or "oh honey you're just confused," all  of which make me feel icky, then that's really to make them feel more comfortable about things. Which is fine. It makes people anxious when they can't fit people neatly into the schema they've used to make sense of the world since probably forever, myself included. I would just be really irritated when people tell me what I should call myself when we clearly are not coming from the same understanding.

The reason I don't give myself any of the aforementioned labels is I don't think they're entirely accurate. I think sexual-orientation is a new social-construct, and it only has value in terms of social meaning, rather than intrapersonal meaning. Race is a social construct too, just as inherently meaningless, but since "whiteness" has social value I would still define myself as white. Although if you were to drop me in a different culture (maybe not now because the world is becoming more homogenous) but let's say a different time, my whiteness might not matter at all. Do you see what I am saying? That's the reason I don't identify because I don't feel a part of LGBT culture nor do I share in their general beliefs and goals about morality and such, and it might give that impression. I think that's what people are really anxious about. At the same time I don't fit into the heteronormative identity either where I've just always statically been straight yippee.

No one takes issue when I call myself a sinner and/or a hypocrite. I am both. I'm pretty sure I've called myself such things on phatmass and no one has ever, ever taken issue which is why I'm not buying "you are not your tempatations" argument. When someone calls themselves an addict or an alcoholic, well some people take issue with that now in light of the current debate, but prior to the deluge of gay threads I've never heard complaint with someone saying "I am an addict" or something either. I think people get anxious because calling yourself "gay" seems to align you with the nefarious gay agenda. To be honest there are people in the LGBT movement who want to deliberately dismantle and deconstruct everything I believe in and I would say yes, they are my enemies. But I would also say there are people in that movement who are not. Probably most of them, so I don't need to have an annyuerism when a practicing Catholic just wants to "call it like they see it" and say "hey I'm GAAAAAY."

I absolutely am my weaknesses. They come along with the entire package. But that's ok because Christ is there to meet me at my weaknesses and complete me where I fail. Which is a lot.

So I still stand by my assertion that SSA sounds really dumb And it's a label to make others feel comfortable.

Peace be with you Knight. I doubt you'll be convinced as you're about as stubborn as the rest of us.

[CrossCuT]

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.

I know that in your mind this makes sense since youre viewing both from the perspective of sins. You say that we should not define ourselves by the sins we commit (or don't commit) and i agree. But this falls short when you consider the whole picture because homosexuality is something people have in their genes. It is not just a thought of sin, it is a part of their being. It would be better to draw an analogy with a physical characteristic as opposed to an action imo.

Edited July 17, 2015 by CrossCuT

[franciscanheart]

I was just about to ask if people who experience disabilities should avoid saying, "I'm disabled," lest anyone think they were assigning the totality of their being or of their human experience to the fact that they have some limitation in a particular area.

[Lilllabettt]

I was just about to ask if people who experience disabilities should avoid saying, "I'm disabled," lest anyone think they were assigning the totality of their being or of their human experience to the fact that they have some limitation in a particular area.

There is a lot of controversy about that. But a lot of people do feel that it should be avoided, yes.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[franciscanheart]

Well we have a difference of opinion. And my SD doesn't seem to mind me refering to homosexuality as homosexuality.

[superblue]

wait, if we can no longer refer to those who are disabled, as disabled.... and we can't refer people who are homosexual as homosexual.

what about the blind, deaf, and midgets ?

 

Do they become vision and hearing impaired ?

Do midgets become " short people " or vertically challenged ?

[franciscanheart]

wait, if we can no longer refer to those who are disabled, as disabled.... and we can't refer people who are homosexual as homosexual.

what about the blind, deaf, and midgets ?

 

Do they become vision and hearing impaired ?

Do midgets become " short people " or vertically challenged ?

I think they like to be called "little people" anyway, but yes: You cannot describe anyone's human experience by anything other than "child of God" around here. To use descriptive language about your human experience is to devolve it to whatever you're describing, according to the (phat)masses.

[Seven77]

I was just about to ask if people who experience disabilities should avoid saying, "I'm disabled," lest anyone think they were assigning the totality of their being or of their human experience to the fact that they have some limitation in a particular area.

I'm a disabled child of God...

[Lilllabettt]

Well we have a difference of opinion. And my SD doesn't seem to mind me refering to homosexuality as homosexuality.

No "we" don't. If by "we" you mean you and me. I use gay. Homosexual sounds like J.Edgar Hooverish.

SSA sounds like a wimp-out somehow. Like instead of masturbation people say "self-harm."

Euphemisms are for wimps. I am not a wimp.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

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]"

The magesterium isn't infallible, although the number 1 appointed source of revealing the truth. There are only 6 declared official matters of infallibility. You all think you got it right, thing is although not wrong in the sense that you have a good heart believe and hopefully repent when you sin if indeed you sin, your to assured of yourselves and the church, the church makes mistakes, God doesn't ! My faith is in the head not the body although i do love the body, the holy father has primacy over the church but Christ is the true head.

 

Jesus iz LORD!

Read the P.s.s i added to my profile. Luv yuz, this much... -|-

although the magesterium is a great source of the Truth it is not infallible although the magesterium is a matter of infallible faith and morals. Do you get the difference? RESPECT DAT!

AND STOP HACKING ON ME AND JUST DISCUSS THINGS WITH ME LIKE HUM<AN BEINGS OF EQUAL STANDING AND AUTHORITY. UNLESS YOUR A PRIEST!

OR DEACON!

In fact treat all with equality and love.

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

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I am a humble beast but i do have teeth, watch it please and pray to God your not a wolf in sheeps clothing coz i'm a sheep dog and looking for the wolves! Sheep need not fear me, i luv tha sheepies.

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

[Nihil Obstat]

 

The magesterium isn't infallible, although the number 1 appointed source of revealing the truth. There are only 6 declared official matters of infallibility. You all think you got it right, thing is although not wrong in the sense that you have a good heart believe and hopefully repent when you sin if indeed you sin, your to assured of yourselves and the church, the church makes mistakes, God doesn't ! My faith is in the head not the body although i do love the body, the holy father has primacy over the church but Christ is the true head.

 

Jesus iz LORD!

Read the P.s.s i added to my profile. Luv yuz, this much... -|-

although the magesterium is a great source of the Truth it is not infallible although the magesterium is a matter of infallible faith and morals. Do you get the difference? RESPECT DAT!

AND STOP HACKING ON ME AND JUST DISCUSS THINGS WITH ME LIKE HUM<AN BEINGS OF EQUAL STANDING AND AUTHORITY. UNLESS YOUR A PRIEST!

OR DEACON!

In fact treat all with equality and love.

The Magisterium is infallible.

[franciscanheart]

I'm a disabled child of God...

I can't wait to see someone ask you why you need to qualify your human experience in that way.

[Credo in Deum]

I'm a disabled child of God...

Same.

The magesterium isn't infallible, although the number 1 appointed source of revealing the truth. There are only 6 declared official matters of infallibility. You all think you got it right, thing is although not wrong in the sense that you have a good heart believe and hopefully repent when you sin if indeed you sin, your to assured of yourselves and the church, the church makes mistakes, God doesn't ! My faith is in the head not the body although i do love the body, the holy father has primacy over the church but Christ is the true head.

 

Jesus iz LORD!

Read the P.s.s i added to my profile. Luv yuz, this much... -|-

although the magesterium is a great source of the Truth it is not infallible although the magesterium is a matter of infallible faith and morals. Do you get the difference? RESPECT DAT!

AND STOP HACKING ON ME AND JUST DISCUSS THINGS WITH ME LIKE HUM<AN BEINGS OF EQUAL STANDING AND AUTHORITY. UNLESS YOUR A PRIEST!

OR DEACON!

In fact treat all with equality and love.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[puellapaschalis]

Oh very good, @Credo in Deum! Took me a while but then I'm still half asleep. Bravo.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

 

The Magisterium is infallible.

Since when? The magesterium is a matter of infallible faith and morals but not infallible. This simply means that the priests bshops pope and deacons have the god given authority to teach, it doesn't mean there always correct although they in general should teach in all sincerity/nihil obstat.

I could be wrong. I'm not perfect. To be perfect like the father is perfect is to have faith in Jesus as he has faith in you. Show me the document that declares that the magesterium is infallible nihil.

show us actually.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

The Magisterium of the Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."⁴⁷ This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."⁴⁸

87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",⁴⁹ the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith

88 The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.⁵⁰

90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.⁵¹ "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."⁵²

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

you have proved me correct if that is the only document you can produce, it neither says nore hints that the Magesterium is infallible. 

I am what is called an 'Old Catholic' nihil. And yes i do recieve the teachings of the church with docility. Did you know the reason why the upside down peace sign used to be on the back of the priests? And also do you know why the symbols are now on the front of the priests? We can illuminate one another, i only know a little about a lot and claim neither to be saint nore angel.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[Nihil Obstat]

The so called "Old Catholics" are heretics, pure and simple.