Catholic views on same sex attraction
(03-08-2011, 11:21 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Protestant buddy.... He refused to come to the baptism itself or the part afterwards....Catholicism is driving a wedge between us.

A great sign. Excellent news!
Reply
(03-09-2011, 12:38 AM)Jitpring Wrote:
(03-08-2011, 11:21 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: Protestant buddy.... He refused to come to the baptism itself or the part afterwards....Catholicism is driving a wedge between us.

A great sign. Excellent news!

Not for him though!  :o
Reply
(03-08-2011, 09:17 PM)Bakuryokuso Wrote: As long as no forum rules are being broken I think Quis tends to let threads die on their own so feel free to wander over to our surrealistic and party-filled Mardi GRAS apology thread. http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...n.html#new

Especially when I'm pretty confident Malleus is making a general ass of himself and people aren't falling for his double-speak.  I'm happy to let him continue rambling and let people see that he's a nut-job, then they'll be less apt to buy into his nonsense.

He seems (who knows for sure) to be claiming that I think homosexual is an identity, when I've been crystal clear I don't.  I don't even thing male and female suffices for essential identity; i.e., in the case of BEING or existence or essence, and I've cited the Scripture, St Augustine, and the Summa to back me up.

His deal is that his panties get in a bunch at the mere use of the word homosexual.  Why?  Quite simply because he doesn't know what the word means.

He talks about because someone committed a sodomitical act in the past they are not homosexuals.  Well, duh.  There's plenty of guys in gay porn or hustling on the street that aren't homosexuals.  Money and drugs motivate people to do lots of things, even the most unnatural and repulsive.  Then there's guys in prison who got sick of stealing butter from the kitchen and want a 98.6 degree scratching post.  They aren't homosexuals either; they are guilty of the sin of sodomy, of course.

What makes a homosexual?  Someone who has a tendency towards that sin.  That's all it means.  When they stop having that tendency, they're no longer a homosexual.  Seems pretty straightforward to me, and that's how the Church uses it, that's how the dictionary defines it.

But because he sees the homosexual agenda trying to define it as an identity to be accepted, he believes their usage is correct over the Church and dictionary usage, and constructs a non-Catholic theology around it.   He asked me at one point if the Church could bind someone under sin not to use that word, and I answered yes.  Unfortunately, the fact escapes him that the Church doesn't bind anyone under sin for use of that word, and she uses that word herself.  The only one binding people under sin for using that word to describe their tendencies is Malleus and a couple of his fan boys.

He rants that God doesn't create homosexuals.  Another big duh.  God doesn't create our souls with Original Sin or any other tendency to sin attached (cf Augustine and Aquinas).  The tendency to sin itself comes from Original Sin which God does not put in us.  Part of the effects of original sin are biological disease, distorted reason, mental illness, concupisence, etc., any one of or all of could explain homosexual tendencies.  So, no, God does not make homosexuals; nor does he make lustful men or men prone to thievery or gambling or gluttony or anything else.  Further He does not make psychopaths or sociopaths nor does He make children with Down's Syndrome or hermaphrodites.  Those all result from the fall of man.  God gives us graces to exert our will and turn from sin to Him, and he further gives us scientific knowledge to reduce the suffering and heal defects as best we can.

But God neither sends people to hell for an inclination to sin or a struggle against sin.  He sends people to hell for mortal sin which is tied to action: in word, thought, or deed.  Not a propensity to act in a certain way, and certainly not for using the word "homosexual" to describe a tendency to sin in a certain way.  If He did, He'd have to send us all to hell for calling ourselves "sinners" or He'd be a hypocrite.

The bottom line is this: Malleus has a tinfoil hat on about the word homosexual, and in an attempt to thwart the homosexual agenda of normalizing "homosexuality" with word games (which is a noble goal) he distorts the theology (which is ignoble and downright offensive).  He invents sins that don't exist, and which if they did exist, the Church Herself would be guilty of in the Catechism, directives of the CDF, etc., which all refer to homosexuals and mean people who have tendencies toward same-sex attraction.

That's the bug in his craw, really.  His point is that there is no such thing as a homosexual identity, and if one uses the word "homosexual" one is guilty of assuming an identity which is an affront to God and therefore a sin.  He can't get it into his skull that there is a proper use of the word homosexual that doesn't have an agenda.  If he stopped buying into the Orwellian and nefarious use of the word "homosexual" and used it as defined and as the Church uses it, there might be some hope for him.  But, no, he has blinders on and doesn't see he's attacking Catholicism and buying into the enemy by even suggesting the word could be used as an "identity".

The whole thing is pretty ludicrous, and I had hoped at the beginning we could have a civil discussion under some type of formal rules, but when he accused me of trying to slience him or being some type of coward for suggesting that we do it under rules, well, whatever. I engaged him on his own playing field and the result is his incomprehensibility.

It's not going to be sorted out by this kind of discussion because he won't be held to any rules of logic, to any meanings of words, citations of Fathers on the meaning of Scripture, etc.

So at this point, it's just me giving him enough rope to keep shooting himself in the foot thereby destroying his own credibility.  :shrug:
Reply
(03-08-2011, 06:09 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: Then what are you arguing about?  Again, you are simply saying there are contradictions, and I see none. 

Malleus: Well just because your eyes are malfunctioning , thats a you problem.   I am not arguing , you apparently are.

That's right, Malleus.  The fact that no one can understand your illogical rant is a problem with them, not with your argument, LOL.

:titanic:
Reply
(03-09-2011, 04:39 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-08-2011, 06:09 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: Then what are you arguing about?  Again, you are simply saying there are contradictions, and I see none. 

Malleus: Well just because your eyes are malfunctioning , thats a you problem.   I am not arguing , you apparently are.

That's right, Malleus.  The fact that no one can understand your illogical rant is a problem with them, not with your argument, LOL.

:titanic:

I LOVE that little Titanic life raft....

And thanks for your clarifications, Quis.
Reply
Quis - your explanation are GOLDEN. Catholicism is so amazing.
Reply
im just gonna bump this thread because it's an amazing read
Reply

A brilliant explanation  from Quis! 

How I would love to see that plastered across the media. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)