No one is reveling in their pride and sin, stop it. Let's have a genuine discussion even if we cannot agree. Ok?
Bishop Joseph Strickland
11,022 Views |
141 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Bob Lee
revel to take great pleasure or delight (usually followed by in): to revel in luxury. to indulge in boisterous festivities; celebrate….. do you even pride month bro?
PabloSerna said:
No one is reveling in their pride and sin, stop it. Let's have a genuine discussion even if we cannot agree. Ok?
You're already reaching on your interpretation, and now you're making this claim? "I am a GAY Catholic. I am a LESBIAN Catholic. I am a TRANS Catholic". Nevermind the entire pride month. You're saying that people encompassing their actions into their identity and asking the Church to change her teachings is not being prideful?
Question: if the Church comes out (yet again) and denounced ALL homosexual activity, how will you respond? Will you tell those you know in this lifestyle that the Church has affirmed they are in sin? Or will you tell them the Church is wrong and it's really ok?
that he can be read as the Judaeans, or perhaps the Pharisees. depends on the father.
No, we probably can't have a genuine discussion if you cannot even agree that the LGBTQ community wanting to have the Church affirm their lifestyle; combined with "Pride Month" isn't "reveling in their pride and sin" then I'm not sure there is much to discuss.PabloSerna said:
No one is reveling in their pride and sin, stop it. Let's have a genuine discussion even if we cannot agree. Ok?
Yes, there are many other ways to sin and homosexuality is only one of them; but you don't see serial adulterers or polygamists trying to convince the Magisterium to change the teachings of the Church to affirm their lifestyles. I am not aware of any other sins with such a strong cheering section trying to get the church to say they're "OK".
Akin to claiming to be a "Black Klansman" or a "Jewish Nazi".The Banned said:
"I am a GAY Catholic. I am a LESBIAN Catholic. I am a TRANS Catholic".
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357:
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex."
>> The key word here has to be "experience" - what does that mean? That this experience can change? Agree that it can be exclusive or predominate. In any case, it is a real thing.
"It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures."
>> This sentence would seem to point out that it is not a new condition, it has been a part of human history for a long time. The "variety of forms" would leave open some questions, what forms are we talking about?
"Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."
>> This is a key part of the puzzle. We don't know some things and science may help with this understanding. I would argue that it may in fact contribute to an evolution of the doctrine.
"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."
>> For me, this is the key sentence that is the lynchpin of this doctrine. It is important to point out that this is not dogma. Dogma is revealed truth by God that the Church guards (Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Trinity, etc.). As is already established, doctrine can evolve. The doctrine of purgatory has evolved for example. So this sentence is right that tradition (teaching) has always said that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Just as important, Sacred Scripture has "presented" such as acts as morally corrupt, basically in the same realm as murder. This sentence is placing the origin of the current doctrine on scripture and tradition - very Catholic.
"They are contrary to the natural law."
>> Precisely because the natural law is looking at this condition through a heterosexual lens for the procreation of humans. Any act between a man and a woman that is closed to the gift of life (condoms, pulling out, anal sex, etc.) is right there as well. However, I would argue that two persons of the same sex are not attempting to procreate- it is an intimate form of affection.
"They close the sexual act to the gift of life."
>> This is because the conjugal act between a man and a woman are directed to procreation and the gift of life given by God. This is strictly a heterosexual understanding and is the basis for Pope Paul VI 1968 encyclical (Humanae Vitae). This was written as a response to the question of birth control.
"They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."
>> Again, this is placing the sex act in the realm of procreation. The genitals between man and woman are complementary and are directed to the procreative dimension and gift of life by God. There is another dimension - the unitive. Paul VI writes in Humanae Vitae that these are two sides of the same coin, "unitive and procreative." Not to be separated or the conjugal act becomes a selfish act, closed to the gift of life. Again, this doctrine is through a heterosexual lens. I posit that if they (homosexuals) could procreate they would. I also posit that they do experience the unitive dimension.
"Under no circumstances can they be approved."
>> If this were dogma, then it is settled. As in, Mary was conceived without sin and it has been settled for all ages. However, I have checked, and this is doctrine. This doctrine as I have argued is based on tradition and tradition's interpretation of scripture. Not to mention that homosexual persons since the beginning have been cast out from the predominate heterosexual sphere. The same tradition held that the good news was just for the Jews until it wasn't.
+++
In the past, we didn't know many homosexual persons, and they went through great lengths to hide their sexuality, even marrying people of the opposite sex. Now that a human rights movement has made it somewhat easier (not always) to come out of the closet it is not as rare to find people who are gay. I have mentioned before, in my line of work (I design houses and remodels) I have clients who have been together a long time and want what my heterosexual clients want as well - a nice home.
Maybe it was because I had family that I already knew was gay growing up and my grandmother always said - "Mijo,do not judge!" I didn't think much of it. As time went on, I have been doing this since the 90's, I have had several gay clients and it struck me that they were no different than my straight clients.
As my faith journey went along, I did what any Domincan will do - I asked questions. I want to know. can I trust my senses that tell me they really love each other, I can see it. These are not "serial adulterers or polygamists" as you claim. I don't know where this goes, but I do know people who want very much to worship God, receive the sacraments, and stand before God and man in a self-giving, loving, and chaste relationship.
I struggle to see what is wrong with that?
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex."
>> The key word here has to be "experience" - what does that mean? That this experience can change? Agree that it can be exclusive or predominate. In any case, it is a real thing.
"It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures."
>> This sentence would seem to point out that it is not a new condition, it has been a part of human history for a long time. The "variety of forms" would leave open some questions, what forms are we talking about?
"Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."
>> This is a key part of the puzzle. We don't know some things and science may help with this understanding. I would argue that it may in fact contribute to an evolution of the doctrine.
"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."
>> For me, this is the key sentence that is the lynchpin of this doctrine. It is important to point out that this is not dogma. Dogma is revealed truth by God that the Church guards (Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Trinity, etc.). As is already established, doctrine can evolve. The doctrine of purgatory has evolved for example. So this sentence is right that tradition (teaching) has always said that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Just as important, Sacred Scripture has "presented" such as acts as morally corrupt, basically in the same realm as murder. This sentence is placing the origin of the current doctrine on scripture and tradition - very Catholic.
"They are contrary to the natural law."
>> Precisely because the natural law is looking at this condition through a heterosexual lens for the procreation of humans. Any act between a man and a woman that is closed to the gift of life (condoms, pulling out, anal sex, etc.) is right there as well. However, I would argue that two persons of the same sex are not attempting to procreate- it is an intimate form of affection.
"They close the sexual act to the gift of life."
>> This is because the conjugal act between a man and a woman are directed to procreation and the gift of life given by God. This is strictly a heterosexual understanding and is the basis for Pope Paul VI 1968 encyclical (Humanae Vitae). This was written as a response to the question of birth control.
"They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."
>> Again, this is placing the sex act in the realm of procreation. The genitals between man and woman are complementary and are directed to the procreative dimension and gift of life by God. There is another dimension - the unitive. Paul VI writes in Humanae Vitae that these are two sides of the same coin, "unitive and procreative." Not to be separated or the conjugal act becomes a selfish act, closed to the gift of life. Again, this doctrine is through a heterosexual lens. I posit that if they (homosexuals) could procreate they would. I also posit that they do experience the unitive dimension.
"Under no circumstances can they be approved."
>> If this were dogma, then it is settled. As in, Mary was conceived without sin and it has been settled for all ages. However, I have checked, and this is doctrine. This doctrine as I have argued is based on tradition and tradition's interpretation of scripture. Not to mention that homosexual persons since the beginning have been cast out from the predominate heterosexual sphere. The same tradition held that the good news was just for the Jews until it wasn't.
+++
In the past, we didn't know many homosexual persons, and they went through great lengths to hide their sexuality, even marrying people of the opposite sex. Now that a human rights movement has made it somewhat easier (not always) to come out of the closet it is not as rare to find people who are gay. I have mentioned before, in my line of work (I design houses and remodels) I have clients who have been together a long time and want what my heterosexual clients want as well - a nice home.
Maybe it was because I had family that I already knew was gay growing up and my grandmother always said - "Mijo,do not judge!" I didn't think much of it. As time went on, I have been doing this since the 90's, I have had several gay clients and it struck me that they were no different than my straight clients.
As my faith journey went along, I did what any Domincan will do - I asked questions. I want to know. can I trust my senses that tell me they really love each other, I can see it. These are not "serial adulterers or polygamists" as you claim. I don't know where this goes, but I do know people who want very much to worship God, receive the sacraments, and stand before God and man in a self-giving, loving, and chaste relationship.
I struggle to see what is wrong with that?
Is it fair to say that your position is that it is theoretically possible for the doctrine that all homosexual acts are inherently disordered, aka evil, could develop such that not all homosexual acts are inherently evil?PabloSerna said:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357:
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex."
>> The key word here has to be "experience" - what does that mean? That this experience can change? Agree that it can be exclusive or predominate. In any case, it is a real thing.
"It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures."
>> This sentence would seem to point out that it is not a new condition, it has been a part of human history for a long time. The "variety of forms" would leave open some questions, what forms are we talking about?
"Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."
>> This is a key part of the puzzle. We don't know some things and science may help with this understanding. I would argue that it may in fact contribute to an evolution of the doctrine.
"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."
>> For me, this is the key sentence that is the lynchpin of this doctrine. It is important to point out that this is not dogma. Dogma is revealed truth by God that the Church guards (Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Trinity, etc.). As is already established, doctrine can evolve. The doctrine of purgatory has evolved for example. So this sentence is right that tradition (teaching) has always said that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Just as important, Sacred Scripture has "presented" such as acts as morally corrupt, basically in the same realm as murder. This sentence is placing the origin of the current doctrine on scripture and tradition - very Catholic.
"They are contrary to the natural law."
>> Precisely because the natural law is looking at this condition through a heterosexual lens for the procreation of humans. Any act between a man and a woman that is closed to the gift of life (condoms, pulling out, anal sex, etc.) is right there as well. However, I would argue that two persons of the same sex are not attempting to procreate- it is an intimate form of affection.
"They close the sexual act to the gift of life."
>> This is because the conjugal act between a man and a woman are directed to procreation and the gift of life given by God. This is strictly a heterosexual understanding and is the basis for Pope Paul VI 1968 encyclical (Humanae Vitae). This was written as a response to the question of birth control.
"They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."
>> Again, this is placing the sex act in the realm of procreation. The genitals between man and woman are complementary and are directed to the procreative dimension and gift of life by God. There is another dimension - the unitive. Paul VI writes in Humanae Vitae that these are two sides of the same coin, "unitive and procreative." Not to be separated or the conjugal act becomes a selfish act, closed to the gift of life. Again, this doctrine is through a heterosexual lens. I posit that if they (homosexuals) could procreate they would. I also posit that they do experience the unitive dimension.
"Under no circumstances can they be approved."
>> If this were dogma, then it is settled. As in, Mary was conceived without sin and it has been settled for all ages. However, I have checked, and this is doctrine. This doctrine as I have argued is based on tradition and tradition's interpretation of scripture. Not to mention that homosexual persons since the beginning have been cast out from the predominate heterosexual sphere. The same tradition held that the good news was just for the Jews until it wasn't.
+++
In the past, we didn't know many homosexual persons, and they went through great lengths to hide their sexuality, even marrying people of the opposite sex. Now that a human rights movement has made it somewhat easier (not always) to come out of the closet it is not as rare to find people who are gay. I have mentioned before, in my line of work (I design houses and remodels) I have clients who have been together a long time and want what my heterosexual clients want as well - a nice home.
Maybe it was because I had family that I already knew was gay growing up and my grandmother always said - "Mijo,do not judge!" I didn't think much of it. As time went on, I have been doing this since the 90's, I have had several gay clients and it struck me that they were no different than my straight clients.
As my faith journey went along, I did what any Domincan will do - I asked questions. I want to know. can I trust my senses that tell me they really love each other, I can see it. These are not "serial adulterers or polygamists" as you claim. I don't know where this goes, but I do know people who want very much to worship God, receive the sacraments, and stand before God and man in a self-giving, loving, and chaste relationship.
I struggle to see what is wrong with that?
PabloSerna said:
As my faith journey went along, I did what any Domincan will do - I asked questions. I want to know. can I trust my senses that tell me they really love each other, I can see it. These are not "serial adulterers or polygamists" as you claim. I don't know where this goes, but I do know people who want very much to worship God, receive the sacraments, and stand before God and man in a self-giving, loving, and chaste relationship.
I struggle to see what is wrong with that?
Homosexual acts will never be chaste. The act can never be ordered to procreation, and the two attributes of the sexual act (unitive and procreative) are inseparable.
No amount of word salad will change that.
God save the Patriarchy!
You have perfectly understood my position in regards to the love between a man and a woman. Now what about the love between two men or two women?
ETA: It can not rise to the level of marriage because of what is written in Genesis. So this leads me to believe it must be something else.
ETA2: I am using chaste in the exclusive sense.
ETA: It can not rise to the level of marriage because of what is written in Genesis. So this leads me to believe it must be something else.
ETA2: I am using chaste in the exclusive sense.
I believe the disordered aspect is about the natural law and less so with regards to good and evil.
Imagine working so hard to suggest that it simply never occurred to the church to consider homosexuals without evaluating as such sexuality.
the defense boils down to "this is only abnormal because you keep looking at it from the view of what is normal" or "this is only wrong because you are comparing it to what is right" or "this is only bad because you're comparing it to what is good".
what if we could evaluate all sins without understanding what is good and perfect and righteous? surely anything may be found to be licit, if we look for the good in the sin and ignore the bad.
instead the church begins here: all sins are perversions of the natural or blameless passions. when the human person is in a sick state, the passions become blameful. this is a key aspect of Christology - that Christ became truly man, and thus willed to endure the blameless passions. But, being like us in every way except sin, had no blameworthy passions. (St John of Damascus writes about this thoroughly in his Exact Exposition). passions themselves are those things which render us passive, that is, they act on us.
blameless passions may become blameful - hunger to gluttony, fatigue to sloth, love to lust. and likewise, the blameful passions can be cured through grace to return to their ordered state - sloth to vigor to perform good deeds, lust to chastity, and so on. this is why the vices are linked to virtues in the writings of St John Cassian and, after him, St John of Damascus. these perversions of blameful passions come from a darkening of the mind, or the soul, or the heart, depending on the patristic language or model being used (in Greek the nous).
armed with this understanding the very approach taken to engage with the catechism above is overtly incorrect. you cannot understand a blameworthy passion without understanding first the blameless. people are theomorphic versus God being anthropomorphic. everything proper to mankind exists in Christ and everything which does not exist in Christ is not part of mankind. Or, as St Gregory the Theologian writes "that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole." All of human nature and what is proper to it was united to Christ, and therefore redeemed.
how can we understand lust apart from chastity? adultery without marriage? or in generalities, death without life, what is temporal versus eternal?
these blameful passions come from our heart, darkened by sin - "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man." and "when we lived according to the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, bearing fruit for death" and "acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like."
going back to the catechism - while it is true that "love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being" and "each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity" the catechism continues:
the defense boils down to "this is only abnormal because you keep looking at it from the view of what is normal" or "this is only wrong because you are comparing it to what is right" or "this is only bad because you're comparing it to what is good".
what if we could evaluate all sins without understanding what is good and perfect and righteous? surely anything may be found to be licit, if we look for the good in the sin and ignore the bad.
instead the church begins here: all sins are perversions of the natural or blameless passions. when the human person is in a sick state, the passions become blameful. this is a key aspect of Christology - that Christ became truly man, and thus willed to endure the blameless passions. But, being like us in every way except sin, had no blameworthy passions. (St John of Damascus writes about this thoroughly in his Exact Exposition). passions themselves are those things which render us passive, that is, they act on us.
blameless passions may become blameful - hunger to gluttony, fatigue to sloth, love to lust. and likewise, the blameful passions can be cured through grace to return to their ordered state - sloth to vigor to perform good deeds, lust to chastity, and so on. this is why the vices are linked to virtues in the writings of St John Cassian and, after him, St John of Damascus. these perversions of blameful passions come from a darkening of the mind, or the soul, or the heart, depending on the patristic language or model being used (in Greek the nous).
armed with this understanding the very approach taken to engage with the catechism above is overtly incorrect. you cannot understand a blameworthy passion without understanding first the blameless. people are theomorphic versus God being anthropomorphic. everything proper to mankind exists in Christ and everything which does not exist in Christ is not part of mankind. Or, as St Gregory the Theologian writes "that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved. If only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also; but if the whole of his nature fell, it must be united to the whole nature of Him that was begotten, and so be saved as a whole." All of human nature and what is proper to it was united to Christ, and therefore redeemed.
how can we understand lust apart from chastity? adultery without marriage? or in generalities, death without life, what is temporal versus eternal?
these blameful passions come from our heart, darkened by sin - "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness. All these evils come from within, and these are what defile a man." and "when we lived according to the flesh, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, bearing fruit for death" and "acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery; idolatry and sorcery; hatred, discord, jealousy, and rage; rivalries, divisions, factions, and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like."
going back to the catechism - while it is true that "love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being" and "each of them, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity" the catechism continues:
- Every baptized person is called to lead a chaste life, each according to his particular state of life.
- Chastity means the integration of sexuality within the person. It includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery.
- Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.
PabloSerna said:
You have perfectly understood my position in regards to the love between a man and a woman. Now what about the love between two men or two women?
ETA: It can not rise to the level of marriage because of what is written in Genesis. So this leads me to believe it must be something else.
love predicated on a romantic interest is not the love spoken of in the scriptures as God.
something which brings sin forth is not the love of God. this is as true in a marital relationship - because you are correct that there are absolutely disordered sexual acts within a marriage - as it is outside of one.
marriage is for the preservation of chastity, it is the only vehicle through which sexual activity remains chaste. as you correctly say that homosexual relationships are not and cannot be marriage, any sexual activity that occurs between them - or between any people outside of marriage - is unchastity.
the love of God does not direct itself toward leading the one you love into sin.
what you are talking about is desire. they are not the same thing.
Zobel, you are a Godsend to many of us! I mean that in a most respectful way.
Will ponder your insight.
Will ponder your insight.
Agree.PabloSerna said:
Zobel, you are a Godsend to many of us! I mean that in a most respectful way.
Will ponder your insight.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
As much as it frustrates me sometimes I am envious of your compassion. Between the two of us is probably the ideal. It reminds me of the one monk who said that life could not bear people in hell, but the other who replied it is their choice. The truth is probably in both.
I think the thing you are absolutely right about is that there is no condemnation of people for their struggles with the passions, regardless of which. What I wrote up there convicts me as a married person as much as any homosexual. In the end though, we are called toward Christ and the virtues. The call is to chastity. I think we have to orient our relationships to others through the virtues, versus taking the relationships first and ordering around them.
I first thought - if they have the love of Christ in their relationship, let them live together as brothers or sisters. But then the church in her wisdom does not permit male and female monastics from living together for the same reasons.
I think this desire being understood as love is a sickness of our whole society. We are disordered collectively. It plays out in marriages as well. Imagine a married person who would say without sex my marriage would fall apart. That's no less wrong and against love.
I think the thing you are absolutely right about is that there is no condemnation of people for their struggles with the passions, regardless of which. What I wrote up there convicts me as a married person as much as any homosexual. In the end though, we are called toward Christ and the virtues. The call is to chastity. I think we have to orient our relationships to others through the virtues, versus taking the relationships first and ordering around them.
I first thought - if they have the love of Christ in their relationship, let them live together as brothers or sisters. But then the church in her wisdom does not permit male and female monastics from living together for the same reasons.
I think this desire being understood as love is a sickness of our whole society. We are disordered collectively. It plays out in marriages as well. Imagine a married person who would say without sex my marriage would fall apart. That's no less wrong and against love.
Law361 said:
1. Strickland being there usurps Gomez' authority.
2. Obedience has limits IF you don't believe in the power of the Holy Spirit promised by Jesus to Peter, his successors, and the Church. Otherwise, you don't have a problem with Francis. You've got a problem with management upstairs.
To your second point above, was Paul out of order and/or unbelieving in the power of the Holy Spirit when he confronted Peter directly?
PabloSerna said:
You keep thinking that LGBTQ+ people want to tear down the church. They don't. They want in.
They want in, but they want to in while rejecting God's teachings and laws regarding sin. This doesn't seem like they want what God offers, but rather they want to undermine what God offers.
PabloSerna said:
It will come down to our understanding of love. This is my opinion. There is room there. Nothing changes.
These are your truest words: "It will come down to Love"…..either people will Love Jesus in truth, forsaking sin and following Him, OR, they will dispute His teachings and love their freshly choices.
So, do they "want in" enough to follow Him in earnest?
St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the church goes into detail when it comes to papal authority and obedience. As the above poster mentioned, obedience to God must be absolute. However, the Pope's authority has limits which Bellarmine is very specific to point out. The quick answer is the Pope must be obeyed when speaking ex-cathedra specifically. The assumption is that as Vicar of Christ he is always doing God's will, and that is a mistake. There are a number of pope's who were saying heretical things or taking positions in opposition to the deposit of faith. If you really want to know the nuance, read Bellarmine. As for the ordained, they take a vow of obedience and for them obedience is much more strict.Captain Pablo said:
I did not say Francis commanded anyone to sin. I'm just asking if there are ANY CONCEIVABLE circumstances under which obedience would have limits
If he truly is getting pushed out, he's not going quietly.
Archbishop Fernandez needs to read Genesis 19:15-29, “The Lord God rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom & Gomorrah” and Romans 1. Pray that he returns to the Catholic faith. https://t.co/FzUMvSE3Q0
— Bishop J. Strickland (@Bishopoftyler) July 6, 2023
An interesting article....
'Bishop Strickland: Laying His Life Down for His Sheep'
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/bishop-strickland-laying-his-life-down-for-his-sheep
'Bishop Strickland: Laying His Life Down for His Sheep'
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/bishop-strickland-laying-his-life-down-for-his-sheep
Everything I am reading is indicating the same sense that there is a distinction between the sacrament of holy matrimony and some other form (blessing?) recognizing same sex relationships that are free and exclusive.
What is coming into focus more and more is the nature of the homosexual person.
I would recommend folks read the whole of Archbishops's book on kissing. He is spot on.
What is coming into focus more and more is the nature of the homosexual person.
I would recommend folks read the whole of Archbishops's book on kissing. He is spot on.
Are these same sex relationships sexual?
PabloSerna said:
Everything I am reading is indicating the same sense that there is a distinction between the sacrament of holy matrimony and some other form (blessing?) recognizing same sex relationships that are free and exclusive.
What is coming into focus more and more is the nature of the homosexual person.
I would recommend folks read the whole of Archbishops's book on kissing. He is spot on.
We're dividing humanity into 2 natures based on their sexual appetites? Or does this mean homosexuals aren't human at all?
How do I know if my sexual appetites are properly ordered toward the good now that there is more than 1 possibility. Do our appetites determine what is good, or should I direct my behavior toward an objective good?
Also, why free and exclusive. If homosexuals are of another nature entirely, then where is the evidence in scripture or anywhere that free and exclusive are appropriate to the nature of homosexual relationships? It seems like you're co opting aspects of healthy human sexuality, and attributing them to homosexual relationships. Based on what exactly?
There seems to be more uprisings against the secular dogma that has crept into church teachings. Below is Bishop Barron going after a Cardinal elect for suggesting the church needs to be more inclusive for diversity of opinions. How can you have a universal truth if everyone gets to have their own opinion? I don't agree with every church teaching but my duty as a faithful Catholic is to work towards church teachings as opposed to demanding the church bend to my world view.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
PabloSerna said:
Everything I am reading is indicating the same sense that there is a distinction between the sacrament of holy matrimony and some other form (blessing?) recognizing same sex relationships that are free and exclusive.
What is coming into focus more and more is the nature of the homosexual person.
I would recommend folks read the whole of Archbishops's book on kissing. He is spot on.
Not to beat a dead horse, I'm just trying to flesh out your comment about the nature of the homosexual person (as distinct from the nature of the human person) coming into focus, because I think its ramifications are disturbing.
If that were true, wouldn't you expect to find that homosexuals aren't equipped for the creation of new life?
Zobel said:
Are these same sex relationships sexual?
No no no brother, they're highly cerebral asexuals living in Josephite spiritual friendzones who immediately regret when their near occasion of sin frequently lapses into sin actual.
Yes. Their expression of love has a physical component that is unitive only- not procreative.
So right off the bat - no one is arguing for two natures.
ETA- accidentally hit the post button. What I mean by free and exclusive is that it should align with the Catholic teaching on love and responsibility. I still maintain, but want to learn more, that love can exist at some level between two persons of the same sex that is more than friendship. Zobel and others have called this "desire" and someone else I asked said it was a "perversion of authentic love" - ouch.
ETA- accidentally hit the post button. What I mean by free and exclusive is that it should align with the Catholic teaching on love and responsibility. I still maintain, but want to learn more, that love can exist at some level between two persons of the same sex that is more than friendship. Zobel and others have called this "desire" and someone else I asked said it was a "perversion of authentic love" - ouch.
Sex outside of matrimony is unchaste and sinful. You can't bless sin. Seems like this should be the end of it.
I see that you are locking in on the theological definition of "nature" as in the dual nature of Christ as truly God and truly man.
I am not saying that there are two natures, one heterosexual and another homosexual. Not at all. Instead what I am observing is that there are persons who are heterosexual and others that are homosexual. This sexuality is a reflection of their being. Part of their essence.
It was recently published that no "gay gene" was discovered - so another point to factor into our understanding.
I am not saying that there are two natures, one heterosexual and another homosexual. Not at all. Instead what I am observing is that there are persons who are heterosexual and others that are homosexual. This sexuality is a reflection of their being. Part of their essence.
It was recently published that no "gay gene" was discovered - so another point to factor into our understanding.
Featured Stories
See All
38:51
1d ago
8.0k
22:46
47m ago
1.6k
Tom Hart discusses commentary made during A&M-Texas game
by David Nuño
5 Thoughts: Texas 70, No. 13 Texas A&M 69
by Luke Evangelist
77:19
1d ago
1.7k
Video Replay: Student Bonfire 2025
by TexAgs
rwhitlock3
Tom Hart discusses commentary made during A&M-Texas game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44