St. Thomas on the Causality of Homosexuality
#21
(04-22-2015, 05:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: That God foreknows the action of every truly free will does not mean that He in any way causes of forces the action of that will. He "withdraws His Grace" only where it is blocked or refused by the subject.

Book and passage, please.

(04-22-2015, 05:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: We read in the Old Testament that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" to continue to refuse to let Israel leave Egyptian servitude. If that were literally so then God is the cause of Pharaoh's perversity... the author of evil... which is a contradiction. What He did was to allow Pharaoh's perversity to prevail by not thwarting it with circumstances beyond Pharaoh's control. You get the picture?

And why doesn't it say that? Why does it say exactly the opposite? Was it opposite day when Moses wrote that?

(btw, I don't think I disagree with you, but you were itching to have a discussion the other day).
Reply
#22
(04-23-2015, 03:15 PM)Renatus Frater Wrote:
(04-22-2015, 05:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: That God foreknows the action of every truly free will does not mean that He in any way causes of forces the action of that will. He "withdraws His Grace" only where it is blocked or refused by the subject.

Book and passage, please.
I can't conveniently do that because I'm not just parroting something I recently read. My submissions come from years of finding and connecting the dots... which dots come from ancient Catechisms, Confessors and wise men's explanations, the reading of many manuals for their content not for names to drop. If it were necessary I could hunt through Summas and Encyclopaedias for back-up but I don't think that necessary for this little argument.

(04-22-2015, 05:18 PM)Oldavid Wrote: We read in the Old Testament that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" to continue to refuse to let Israel leave Egyptian servitude. If that were literally so then God is the cause of Pharaoh's perversity... the author of evil... which is a contradiction. What He did was to allow Pharaoh's perversity to prevail by not thwarting it with circumstances beyond Pharaoh's control. You get the picture?

Quote:And why doesn't it say that? Why does it say exactly the opposite? Was it opposite day when Moses wrote that?

(btw, I don't think I disagree with you, but you were itching to have a discussion the other day).
It doesn't say "exactly the opposite". It merely anthropomorphises God for intelligibility for hundreds of generations of ordinary non- scholastical folk. There is no real contradiction.

There is another thing about inspired Scripture. Inspiration is not dictation. The inspired writer is given a "picture" or an "idea" which he has to convey using the language and idiom at his disposal. It will always be true but not necessarily perfectly understood by either the writer or reader instantly. Take, for instance, S John's Apocalypse... clearly not intended to be a literal prediction of things to come. Much of it will only be known in hindsight.

Let the discussion begin! Perhaps on another thread??
Reply
#23
Actually I'm not really sure what the point is Oldavid. It doesn't disagree with either Geremia posts, or anything I or anyone else have said here. A discussion about predestination, and God's foreknowledge, is seperate from any discussion on a causal link between idolatry and homoerotic attraction which is what Geremia is getting at.

His point was that if you merely had homoerotic attraction, then that's equivalent with idolatry. And that idolatry is a direct cause of homoerotic attraction, and not merely an indirect cause of lust, in as much as God pulled away the grace that prevented these people from falling into sin.

Geremia has made this point here, and on other forums (who shall not be named). The point being again that the attraction felt is a mortal sin.

This is what I've responded to. I'm not sure exactly what you're responding to though.

Whether God always knew, in His unique timeless mind, and some sense from eternity always had changelessly decided, that at this point the grace to resist would leave them. Isn't really relevant here, though its an interesting point. Definitely worth another thread. Especially your contention between Lois de Molina and St. Thomas Aquinas. I lean towards the latter, though I agree that no completely satisfactory solution to the tension between true human freedom, divine foreknowledge, God's eternal simplicity and time has really been made yet.
Reply
#24
What concerns me very much is that a young Catholic man with same sex attraction, who is scrupulous and sensitive (and suggestible), will read Geremia's inferences -- which are false and contrary to Catholic teaching -- and become emotionally ill, a hardened sinner or even suicidal due to the despair they can engender.  And all to satisfy some kind of animus or contrarian urge on the part of the poster.

We are answerable to God for every word.  Our Lord warned us about this in the Gospel.  If someone harms one of these little ones, it might be better for him if he were collared with a millstone and drowned.  Cf. Matthew 18:6.
Reply
#25
(04-24-2015, 10:15 AM)Leonhard Wrote: Actually I'm not really sure what the point is Oldavid. It doesn't disagree with either Geremia posts, or anything I or anyone else have said here. A discussion about predestination, and God's foreknowledge, is seperate from any discussion on a causal link between idolatry and homoerotic attraction which is what Geremia is getting at.

His point was that if you merely had homoerotic attraction, then that's equivalent with idolatry. And that idolatry is a direct cause of homoerotic attraction, and not merely an indirect cause of lust, in as much as God pulled away the grace that prevented these people from falling into sin.

Geremia has made this point here, and on other forums (who shall not be named). The point being again that the attraction felt is a mortal sin.

This is what I've responded to. I'm not sure exactly what you're responding to though.

Whether God always knew, in His unique timeless mind, and some sense from eternity always had changelessly decided, that at this point the grace to resist would leave them. Isn't really relevant here, though its an interesting point. Definitely worth another thread. Especially your contention between Lois de Molina and St. Thomas Aquinas. I lean towards the latter, though I agree that no completely satisfactory solution to the tension between true human freedom, divine foreknowledge, God's eternal simplicity and time has really been made yet.
I am not trying to judge the guilt or innocence of anyone for anything. What I am arguing against is the notion that "God withdraws His Grace" and is, therefore, effectively the cause of someone or anyone being inextricably bogged in a sure path to Perdition. That is the thin end of the wedge that results in the Jansenistic/Protestant version of predestination. It seems to have begun with St 'Gus's notions of God's omnipotence and omniscience, and continued with St Tom's attempts to conform to it.

Luis Molina seems to have thought about it a bit more independently and reasoned a much more likely harmony between "predestination" and free will.

No one is condemned for a fault that is not their own.
Reply
#26
(04-24-2015, 05:57 PM)Oldavid Wrote:
(04-24-2015, 10:15 AM)Leonhard Wrote: Actually I'm not really sure what the point is Oldavid. It doesn't disagree with either Geremia posts, or anything I or anyone else have said here. A discussion about predestination, and God's foreknowledge, is seperate from any discussion on a causal link between idolatry and homoerotic attraction which is what Geremia is getting at.

His point was that if you merely had homoerotic attraction, then that's equivalent with idolatry. And that idolatry is a direct cause of homoerotic attraction, and not merely an indirect cause of lust, in as much as God pulled away the grace that prevented these people from falling into sin.

Geremia has made this point here, and on other forums (who shall not be named). The point being again that the attraction felt is a mortal sin.

This is what I've responded to. I'm not sure exactly what you're responding to though.

Whether God always knew, in His unique timeless mind, and some sense from eternity always had changelessly decided, that at this point the grace to resist would leave them. Isn't really relevant here, though its an interesting point. Definitely worth another thread. Especially your contention between Lois de Molina and St. Thomas Aquinas. I lean towards the latter, though I agree that no completely satisfactory solution to the tension between true human freedom, divine foreknowledge, God's eternal simplicity and time has really been made yet.
I am not trying to judge the guilt or innocence of anyone for anything. What I am arguing against is the notion that "God withdraws His Grace" and is, therefore, effectively the cause of someone or anyone being inextricably bogged in a sure path to Perdition. That is the thin end of the wedge that results in the Jansenistic/Protestant version of predestination. It seems to have begun with St 'Gus's notions of God's omnipotence and omniscience, and continued with St Tom's attempts to conform to it.

Luis Molina seems to have thought about it a bit more independently and reasoned a much more likely harmony between "predestination" and free will.

No one is condemned for a fault that is not their own.

I think you are right about Molina there, but his thought still seems to tend in the direction of the Calvinist view.
Reply
#27
(04-24-2015, 06:31 PM)Papist Wrote: I think you are right about Molina there, but his thought still seems to tend in the direction of the Calvinist view.
I will dispute that.
Reply
#28
(04-24-2015, 07:27 PM)Oldavid Wrote:
(04-24-2015, 06:31 PM)Papist Wrote: I think you are right about Molina there, but his thought still seems to tend in the direction of the Calvinist view.
I will dispute that.

And I would dispute that. ;)
Reply
#29
(04-27-2015, 11:00 AM)Papist Wrote:
(04-24-2015, 07:27 PM)Oldavid Wrote:
(04-24-2015, 06:31 PM)Papist Wrote: I think you are right about Molina there, but his thought still seems to tend in the direction of the Calvinist view.
I will dispute that.

And I would dispute that. ;)

Alright, gents, let's have a nice clean disputation, no ad hominem, no accusations of heresy.  :jabs:
Reply
#30
(04-27-2015, 11:35 AM)Dirigible Wrote: Alright, gents, let's have a nice clean disputation, no ad hominem, no accusations of heresy.  :jabs:
Come now, Dirigible, how could some half Oirish Strine have "a nice clean disputation" about anything?
(04-27-2015, 11:00 AM)Papist Wrote:
(04-24-2015, 07:27 PM)Oldavid Wrote:
(04-24-2015, 06:31 PM)Papist Wrote: I think you are right about Molina there, but his thought still seems to tend in the direction of the Calvinist view.
I will dispute that.
And I would dispute that. ;)
And I will dispute that. I don't really know what I'm fighting about but I'm going to keep on fighting until I get it.

Fun aside... Calvinists, Jansenists and a carefully rendered version of Tom,  and 'Gus  suggest that no one is "saved" unless God willed their salvation from the beginning  giving them the Grace necessary for their salvation and, by implication, denying everyone else any possibility of salvation.

Now, being more than just a bit Oirish I will contend that even a Pom or a Dutchman could get to Heaven.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)