Gay Cancer

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1401777' date='Oct 13 2007, 04:40 PM']hot stuff,

You and I have gone through this many times before, and we will never agree. I consider your position untenable, because you try to confuse matters by making a disordered sexual inclination, which is a consequence of the ancestral sin, into a subsisting positive quality in a man.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]

Regardless of our disagreements, you cannot justifiably suggest that homosexuality and homosexual actions to be considered the same and both intrinsically disordered. It is not me you are disagreeing with but the Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1401783' date='Oct 13 2007, 02:48 PM']Regardless of our disagreements, you cannot justifiably suggest that homosexuality and homosexual actions to be considered the same and both intrinsically disordered. It is not me you are disagreeing with but the Church.[/quote]
It is evident to me that you really do not read what people post. I said that the term "homosexuality" can refer to either the disordered inclination or to homosexual acts.

That said, I do not disagree with the Church, I disagree with you.

God bless,
Todd

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1401785' date='Oct 13 2007, 04:50 PM']It is evident to me that you really do not read what people post. I said that the term "homosexuality" can refer to either the disordered inclination or to homosexual acts.

That said, I do not disagree with the Church, I disagree with you.

God bless,
Todd[/quote]

I did read what you posted and clarification was needed. As I said, it is because people were using the term homosexuality to cover both, the fatal flaw was that the uneducated took it as the person (or the desire) was intrinsically disordered. This has a devastating effect on the ministry to people who are Catholic and homosexual desires. It causes a separation within our brethren. That is why I called it out originally.

[Apotheoun]

hot stuff,

Your equivocations on moral issues were one of the reasons why I resigned as a Phatmass Church Scholar back in May of 2006, because I could not in good conscience be associated with your posts on moral doctrine.

God bless,
Todd

Edited October 13, 2007 by Apotheoun

[Thumper]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1401789' date='Oct 13 2007, 03:54 PM']I did read what you posted and clarification was needed. As I said, it is because people were using the term homosexuality to cover both, the fatal flaw was that the uneducated took it as the person (or the desire) was intrinsically disordered. This has a devastating effect on the ministry to people who are Catholic and homosexual desires. It causes a separation within our brethren. That is why I called it out originally.[/quote]

If I may, I think that hot stuff is trying to point out that "person" has often been conflated with "desire" in terms of the instrinsic disorder associated with homosexual inclinations. That said, the second sentence might be clearer if it read "the fatal flaw was that the uneducated took it as the person, [b][i]rather than the desire[/i][/b], was instrinsically disordered."

IMHO, seeking for clarity should be differentiated from moral equivocation.

My two cents. Spend 'em any way you like.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Thumper

[dairygirl4u2c]

okay children..

i think hot stuff should just say that yes it can refer to both. and apo should say that yes the confusion can lead the uneducated to take the wrong impression, cause what jaimie said was true.

it's really not that hard to admit. just own up.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Thumper' post='1401800' date='Oct 13 2007, 03:08 PM']If I may, I think that hot stuff is trying to point out that "person" has often been conflated with "desire" in terms of the instrinsic disorder associated with homosexual inclinations. That said, the second sentence might be clearer if it read "the fatal flaw was that the uneducated took it as the person, [b][i]rather than the desire[/i][/b], was instrinsically disordered."

IMHO, seeking for clarity should be differentiated from moral equivocation.

My two cents. Spend 'em any way you like. [/quote]
I do not believe that persons are reducible to disordered desires of any kind (natural or unnatural), and I have said this many times before at Phatmass. In fact, that is why I refuse to say that a human being [i]is[/i] a homosexual.

[quote]Of course no one [b]is[/b] a homosexual, because you cannot reduce a person to disordered inclinations and desires. That being said, heterosexual desires are perfectly natural, while homosexual desires are not, and this necessary distinction is a truth which the Church holds to be absolute and unchangeable.

Finally, if you read the posts that I have written over the last two years on this difficult moral and theological issue, you will see immediately that I have always refused to reduce a man to the disordered inclinations that afflict his mind.[/quote]
Taken from the thread entitled: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=52632&view=findpost&p=987074"][u]Homosexuality[/u][/url]

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1401810' date='Oct 13 2007, 05:15 PM']I do not believe that persons are reducible to disordered desires of any kind (natural or unnatural), and I have said this many times before at Phatmass. In fact, that is why I refuse to say that a human being [i]is[/i] a homosexual.
Taken from the thread entitled: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=52632&view=findpost&p=987074"][u]Homosexuality[/u][/url][/quote]
I agree.

[XIX]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1401703' date='Oct 13 2007, 03:19 PM']The adjectives are extremely important[/quote]

[quote]okay children..

i think hot stuff should just say that yes it can refer to both. and apo should say that yes the confusion can lead the uneducated to take the wrong impression, cause what jaimie said was true.

it's really not that hard to admit. just own up.[/quote]
Yeah seriously. Children indeed.

Edited October 13, 2007 by XIX

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='XIX' post='1401813' date='Oct 13 2007, 03:17 PM'][/quote]
The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, but one can also describe the disordered desires arising from this condition as "intrinsically" or "inherently" disordered, because not only are homosexual acts unnatural, but so are the desires that arise from this pathological condition. In other words, both an act and a desire can frustrate the natural end ([i]telos[/i]) of a man, and that is why I cannot in good conscience agree with hot stuff.

Edited October 13, 2007 by Apotheoun

[hyperdulia again]

Now as to the word pathological. It bothers me. Do you have some reference to support this term?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1401827' date='Oct 13 2007, 03:25 PM']Now as to the word pathological. It bothers me. Do you have some reference to support this term?[/quote]
The Church's Magisterium used the term in its declaration entitled [u]Persona Humana[/u] in order to describe a homosexual condition that perdures over time.

[hyperdulia again]

Ok. Thank you.

[Aloysius]

The disorder is not intrinsic to the person; this is the reason to be careful with the word "intrinsic". cmom was not saying it was intrinsic to the person, but nonetheless it is important to make a distinction.

a homosexual is not intrinsically disordered.
homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. when I speak of "homosexuality" I am already speaking in the objective sense, for I am not referencing persons. therefore, by the very definition of the word "instrinsic", homosexuality in the objective sense is intrinsically disordered.

The definition according to dictionary.com:
"belonging to a thing by its very nature"

this is why one must say homosexuals are not intrinsically disordered; but homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. homosexuals have an objective disorder. see, when I say homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, I am saying that by the very nature of homosexuality, it is a disorder. if I were to say that a homosexual is intrinsically disordered, I would be incorrect, because I would be saying that that person is disordered by his very nature; and no person is disordered by their very nature because nature in itself is a positive good.

One can confuse oneself very easily by attempting to determine Church teaching about which words to use by merely looking to where and when the Church uses them. Yes, she usually uses them in the correct senses at the correct times; but when She makes a distinction between the use of a word at one time and at another, there are usually many factors as to why that word was used there and not in the other place. But I understand it's a colloquial way of differentiating different points of doctrine, saying "the Church uses this word here and this word here"... but when you understand the definitions of the word then you can understand why the Church uses one word one place and another word the other place.

btw, "intrinsically" and "objectively" are adverbs, not adjectives

EDIT: also, I agree with not calling human beings "homosexuals"... but when others do use the term, it would be incorrect to refer to "homosexuals" as being "intrinsically disordered", because really, "homosexuals" really refers to "homosexual persons", and thus you are calling homosexuality intrinsic to the person, you are calling disorder intrinsic to the person.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1401872' date='Oct 13 2007, 03:56 PM']a homosexual is not intrinsically disordered.[/quote]
No one is a homosexual.