Good Friday Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='cmotherofpirl']Your lack of understanding of what he is saying doesn 't mean he is attacking you.[/quote] I understand perfectly what he's saying, Cheryl. I'm not an idiot because I'm 20. He's saying that because homosexuality is an objective disorder, it does not actually exist. He's also saying that because it is an objective disorder, it should be overcome with the help of God's grace. And he is misrepresenting this as Church teaching, BECAUSE: [b]What he's saying is not to be found anywhere in the Catechism or in the letters from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and he refuses to show where it is shown, only proving the point that it isn't to be found.[/b] If it's really as simple as he pretends, and if it really is Church teaching, surely he would be able to find it clearly and manifestly taught somewhere, no?
spathariossa Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 22 2005, 02:25 PM'] [quote name='cmotherofpirl']Your lack of understanding of what he is saying doesn 't mean he is attacking you.[/quote] I understand perfectly what he's saying, Cheryl. I'm not an idiot because I'm 20. He's saying that because homosexuality is an objective disorder, it does not actually exist. He's also saying that because it is an objective disorder, it should be overcome with the help of God's grace. And he is misrepresenting this as Church teaching, BECAUSE: [b]What he's saying is not to be found anywhere in the Catechism or in the letters from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and he refuses to show where it is shown, only proving the point that it isn't to be found.[/b] If it's really as simple as he pretends, and if it really is Church teaching, surely he would be able to find it clearly and manifestly taught somewhere, no? [/quote] I love you.
jmjtina Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 22 2005, 02:12 PM'] My advice to the people on this phorum is to read the documents of the Church themselves and not listen to these people who claim to be Church Scholars but actually misrepresent what the Church teaches, intentionally. [/quote] Just because I read a doctors medical book, doesn't mean I understand it fully. Todd studies the faith from a very faithful University and tries to help the rest of us understand our faith more, just as his teachers help him, but that is besides the point. I don't think he's arguing with you, but clarifiying what you seem to not understand. (your not the only one) He doesn't misrepresent the Church Nate. And you implying that he does makes me wonder about you. Edited January 22, 2005 by jmjtina
Good Friday Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='jmjtina']I don't think he's arguing with you, but clarifiying what you seem to not understand. He doesn't misrepresent the Church Nate. And you implying that he does makes me wonder about you.[/quote] When someone asks you why you insist on identifying yourself with an objective disorder, they are officially arguing with you. And he has not clarified "what I seem not to understand" -- I understand what he's saying, but have asked, again and again, for him to prove his assertion that it is Church teaching. That is, after all, why this is the [b]Debate Table[/b]. People do need to prove that what they're saying here is Church teaching if they're going to claim that it is, and so far he has not, nor has he even tried to. And the fact that he is from some University -- probably Franciscan in Steubenville, which does [b]not[/b] impress me -- is not going to make me accept what he's saying at face value. Until he proves that what he is saying is Church teaching, I contend that he is misrepresenting the Church.
cmotherofpirl Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 He already has, several times. You just don't get it.
Good Friday Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl']He already has, several times. You just don't get it.[/quote] I'm getting really tired of being treated like I'm stupid by you, just to let you know. He has cited a bunch of documents which do not [b]remotely[/b] say what he's saying. The only thing the documents say is that it is an objective disorder -- the rest is his own invention (or, more likely, the invention of some nutcase conservative professor at one of our "faithful" universities). I understand [b]what[/b] he's saying, I disagree that it is [b]Church teaching[/b], and he will not prove that it is. Edited January 22, 2005 by Good Friday
spathariossa Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 I don't think it's that he doesn't get it at all. I think the issue is that the presentation by people like Apotheoun lacks both humility and charity. Maybe it is because this is the umpteenth time you've been through this but I think that the alienation comes from the means not the substance.
jmjtina Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 22 2005, 02:43 PM'] And the fact that he is from some University -- probably Franciscan in Steubenville, which does [b]not[/b] impress me -- is not going to make me accept what he's saying at face value. [/quote] and we should take yours? I usually don't take anything you say at face value at all since you usually go by your own logic of what Church documents seem to be (which seem to change from time to time) and your rollercoaster emotions.
Good Friday Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='jmjtina']I usually don't take anything you say at face value at all since you usually go by your own logic of what Church documents seem to be (which seem to change from time to time) and your rollercoaster emotions.[/quote] Hey, I resemble that remark. One only need [b]read[/b] the documents, which are in plain English, to see that they do not say what he says they say. Even if I were an orthodox Catholic, I would not agree with what he's saying, because it is not Church teaching. The Church calls homosexuals to chastity, that is manifestly clear in the Catechism; the Church does not call homosexuals to change their orientation.
Apotheoun Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 [quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 22 2005, 12:49 PM']I don't think it's that he doesn't get it at all. I think the issue is that the presentation by people like Apotheoun lacks both humility and charity. Maybe it is because this is the umpteenth time you've been through this but I think that the alienation comes from the means not the substance.[/quote] The fact that I won't cave in and say what is [i]politically correct[/i] may be offensive to some people, but that really is beside the point. Compassion cannot be separated from the truth. I refuse to identify a man with any objectively disordered desire, and of course that includes the homosexual inclination; in other words, I refuse to reduce a man to concupiscence. Concupiscence has no [i]being[/i], rather it is a lack of being, i.e., it is a disorder of the will. Now this may be hard for some people to grasp in our society at the present time, but it is the constant teaching of the Church, reaffirmed as such at the Council of Trent in opposition to the Reformers. As Trent declared: ". . . this holy Synod confesses and perceives that there remains in the baptized [i]concupiscence of an inclination[/i], although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, [i]but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ[/i]. Nay, indeed, 'he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned' (2 Tim. 2:5). This concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls sin (Rom. 6:12) the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, [i]but because it is from sin and inclines to sin[/i]. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema." [Trent, [u]Decree on Original Sin[/u], no. 5] Grace is the medicine of the soul, and a man who has been justified by the gift of God's grace in Christ Jesus must use the various graces given to him in order to resist the disordered inclinations arising from original sin. Therefore, a man must never identify himself with those disordered inclinations, whatever they may be; rather, he must identify himself with Christ the Lord, who frees him from slavery to sin and death, and who empowers him to live as he should, resisting the various disordered inclinations affecting his will because of the fall of Adam. God bless, Todd
Socrates Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 (edited) [quote name='jezic' date='Jan 22 2005, 12:11 AM'] I don't think that being gay (or anything else for that matter) is a disorder or a disease as some would call it. It is something that God has given you, a unique path that is hidden from the eyes of the wise. I just pray that you will find your way. [/quote] A moral disorder is not a gift from God! It may be an evil that God allows to exist, but it is not something God positively causes. The Church specifically teaches that homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered and is not something neutral or benign. This "path from God" stuff is contrary to Catholic theology. God does not make homosexuals any more than he makes serial killers, rapists, zoophiles, or pedophiles! Edited January 23, 2005 by Socrates
Guest Aluigi Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 why do you insist on posting like that... think before you post, and stop at the term "pedophile" there is no need to clarify vulgarly it can be considered a gift insomuch as every cross, suffering, and temptation is a gift from God in order to strengthen the person by it. In resisting the temptation you become stronger, and that is wherein lies the "gift" of the disordered inclination. No one is required to go to a psychologist or anything over this, but they are required to resist and live chastely. Obsessing over "take this away" is not the healthy path usually. Accepting the cross and living chastely is a good way, and no one with the disordered inclination is expected to do any more or less.
spathariossa Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jan 22 2005, 03:40 PM'] The fact that I won't cave in and say what is [i]politically correct[/i] may be offensive to some people, but that really is beside the point. Compassion cannot be separated from the truth. I refuse to identify a man with any objectively disordered desire, and of course that includes the homosexual inclination; in other words, I refuse to reduce a man to concupiscence. Concupiscence has no [i]being[/i], rather it is a lack of being, i.e., it is a disorder of the will. Now this may be hard for some people to grasp in our society at the present time, but it is the constant teaching of the Church, reaffirmed as such at the Council of Trent in opposition to the Reformers. As Trent declared: ". . . this holy Synod confesses and perceives that there remains in the baptized [i]concupiscence of an inclination[/i], although this is left to be wrestled with, it cannot harm those who do not consent, [i]but manfully resist by the grace of Jesus Christ[/i]. Nay, indeed, 'he who shall have striven lawfully, shall be crowned' (2 Tim. 2:5). This concupiscence, which at times the Apostle calls sin (Rom. 6:12) the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin, as truly and properly sin in those born again, [i]but because it is from sin and inclines to sin[/i]. But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema." [Trent, [u]Decree on Original Sin[/u], no. 5] Grace is the medicine of the soul, and a man who has been justified by the gift of God's grace in Christ Jesus must use the various graces given to him in order to resist the disordered inclinations arising from original sin. Therefore, a man must never identify himself with those disordered inclinations, whatever they may be; rather, he must identify himself with Christ the Lord, who frees him from slavery to sin and death, and who empowers him to live as he should, resisting the various disordered inclinations affecting his will because of the fall of Adam. God bless, Todd [/quote] Caring for someone's feelings isn't PC the last time I checked.
Good Friday Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Socrates']God does not make homosexuals any more than he makes serial killers, rapists, zoophiles, or pedophiles![/quote] Ah, the classic comparison of homosexuals to society's worst criminals. Now this thread is complete.
Guest Aluigi Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 GF, I love you. that argument simply isn't gonna work. now all those actions are bad to different degrees and stuff and simply relating them all is just going to make people mad. homosexuality is the most complicated of that list you made, the other stuff is less complicated sinful actions, it doesn't have the big self-identification crises linked to this.
Socrates Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 (edited) My point is that people have strong inclinations to these other things too. I don't think they are genetically predetermined any more than homosexuality. Genes may play a role in how prone one may be to develop a particular disorder after going through certain circumstances (some people are probably more prone to be killers than others, for example), but no one is "born that way." A predisposition to something does not make it good. Because something "feels good" does not make it right. Edited January 23, 2005 by Socrates
spathariossa Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 22 2005, 11:41 PM'] My point is that people have strong inclinations to these other things too. I don't think they are genetically predetermined any more or less than homosexuality. Genes may play a role in how prone one may be to develop a particular disorder after going through certain circumstances (some people are probably more prone to be killers than others, for example), but no one is "born that way." A predisposition to something does not make it good. Because something "feels good" does not make it right. [/quote] We don't know if it is inborn or not. It ultimately doesn't matter.
Apotheoun Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 Temptations are never a gift of God, for God tempts no one; as the Catechism explains in reference to the concluding petition of the Lord's Prayer: "This petition goes to the root of the preceding one, for our sins result from our consenting to temptation; we therefore ask our Father not to 'lead' us into temptation. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both 'do not allow us to enter into temptation' and 'do not let us yield to temptation.' '[i]God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one[/i]'; on the contrary, he wants to set us free from evil. We ask him not to allow us to take the way that leads to sin. We are engaged in the battle 'between flesh and spirit'; this petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength." [[u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u], no. 2846]
Recommended Posts