Posted on 10/15/2014 3:03:07 PM PDT by NYer
“Michaelangelo never said he was a homosexual and no one ever “outed” him. Big difference.”
Nope. He had gifts and talents no matter what his sexual orientation. That’s the point. The document seems to be saying that homosexuals have a disorder, but that doesn’t mean they do not have worth in regard to talents and gifts.
“No one knew his proclivities.”
No one knew? So the women or men he was involved with didn’t know? You are making no sense whatsoever. His confessor didn’t know? Come on. The lengths that some people go to to avoid obvious logic is shocking to me. If Michaelangelo was homosexual he still had talents and gifts. If he was heterosexual, he still had talents and gifts. He was human.
“Today’s homo’s make themselves very known vocally, in the Church.”
Actually, no. There are plenty of people who will tell you that some big urban dioceses may have dozens of homosexual priests yet those priests by and large do not “make themselves very known vocally, in the Church.”
“So disapproval of their sexual behavior becomes fodder for the libs and the progressives in the Catholic Church. It’s all out there in the open now.”
No, it isn’t. I wish it was so the obvious problem could be uprooted and homosexuals could be ousted from the priesthood, but that isn’t the case.
“I saw the quote in an article on the subject.”
Okay. I hope you let the author know that he was wrong.
“But then maybe CNA and EWTN are the ones that were “so wrong”?”
Apparently you and them - because as we just saw, the word “sin” is in the document. See below (again):
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
“They need to be more clear on that then, if that is what their aim was.”
And I’m so sure they highly value (or would that be “evaluate”) your opinion of the clarity of their writing.
“Not clear at all”
It sure seemed clear to me. I did not think for a single second that they were saying homosexuals were endowed with gifts and talents that only they would have because what on earth would those be?
Does anyone ever think anymore? I used to think that only anti-Catholic Protestants had these obvious reasoning problems. Now, I am not so sure.
It is still a sin, even if you don't act on the urge.
I was born on a Wednesday...but not last Wednesday.
Yeah, the dog ate their lunch. Maybe they should try Google Translate.
Like the gifts those talented homosexual priests gave to all those Catholic boys?
“It is still a sin, even if you don’t act on the urge.”
An inclination is not a sin. Dwelling in your mind on acting on that inclination or actually acting on that inclination is what is sinful.
What guy isn't inclined toward women?, to put it politely.
Are you living in LaLaLand? Geez. Are you gay too and feel the need to go to ridiculous lengths to justify what the progressive priests in this Synod are attempting to do? What’s wrong with you.
“No one knew? So the women or men he was involved with didn’t know? You are making no sense whatsoever. His confessor didn’t know? Come on. The lengths that some people go to to avoid obvious logic is shocking to me.”
No one even knows if Michaelangelo was gay and you’re sitting there saying his lovers and confessors would know when you don’t even know if he had any. You are making stuff up out of whole cloth. Logic? You don’t have any.
The key word “valutando,” which has sparked controversy within the Church, was translated by the Vatican as “valuing.”
Italian's “valutando” in fact means “evaluating,” and in this context would be better translated with “weighing” or “considering.”
This should quell the panic, but it probably won't.
So forget what is written by the Church. The Church must tell you what they REALLY meant.
“What guy isn’t inclined toward women?, to put it politely.”
But that’s just it. A normal, healthy man, has an inclination toward women to whom he is attracted - to have sex with them, even if not his wife. We’re sexual beings - as created by God - and we have sexual desires that we must control. If we act on all of our inclinations, we would all be committing mortal sins left and right. Inclination is not the problem. Sin is the problem.
Well, most pipe-organ service technicians are homosexual. But since they're getting paid for their services, I guess you're right.
It says that “homosexuals” may give gifts, etc. Any “gifts” they have are not because they’re homosexuals, but because they’re human beings with certain gifts.
What the document is saying, however, is not even referring to individual gifts, in the sense of talents. It means that a certain class of people - those who call themselves gay or think of themselves primarily in terms of their sexual hang-ups - have something special to offer just because they’re homosexuals and define themselves that way.
They don’t.
“Are you living in LaLaLand?”
Nope. I am grounded in the teachings of the faith and good, old fashioned logic.
“Geez. Are you gay too and feel the need to go to ridiculous lengths to justify what the progressive priests in this Synod are attempting to do? What’s wrong with you.”
Absolutely nothing is wrong with me. And I am not “gay” nor am I a homosexual. I also am not going to any length at all to “justify what the progressive priests in this Synod are attempting to do”. I am merely pointing out the obvious. People keep saying the text says this or that when it actually doesn’t. I have no idea why people are making things up, making false claims, or are just being stupid but I refuse to be anything but accurate, precise and correct. Thus, if someone tells me that the word “sin” appears in the document when it is actually in the document, I can only disagree and point out the error (as I did). Please note, I might question your ability to argue these things logically - based upon your posts - but I would NEVER stoop to questioning your sexuality. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you did was disgusting and shameful.
“No one even knows if Michaelangelo was gay...”
You said no one KNEW. Past tense. As is someone from HIS OWN time. Most likely someone knew one way or the other.
“and you’re sitting there saying his lovers and confessors would know when you don’t even know if he had any.”
If Giovanni Cavalcante or Tommaso Cavalieri made it to heaven I’ll ask them if not Michelangelo himself. Deal?
“You are making stuff up out of whole cloth.”
Not one bit.
“Logic? You don’t have any.”
Actually, I clearly have far more than I’m going to see posted against me at this rate. Why don’t you just give up the pretense of any logical argument and just falsely accuse me of being a homosexual again? That seems to be your level of discourse at this point anyway.
It wasn’t an incorrect translation. The primary meaning of the word is to value or appreciate; “evaluating” homosexuals, furthermore, would make no sense.
I really get the impression that the “progressives” who pushed this through are surprised at the popular reaction and are trying to obscure their involvement without, at the same time, denying the meaning of the document.
I notice the Pope is nowhere to be found (he attended the sessions, btw) and I agree with Cdl Muller that he needs to come out and say something clear sometime very soon.
“What the document is saying, however, is not even referring to individual gifts, in the sense of talents.”
That’s what you’re saying.
the actual text says:
“Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”
“just falsely accuse me of being a homosexual again”
Nice lie. I asked you if you were gay, a logical question considering what you accused Michaelangelo of when he’s deader than a doornail and thus cannot defend himself about being a homo. I did not accuse you of being one, but asked if you were. Big difference, and you try to lie and twist my words. The Synod report also lied to cover up their saying “valued” homo’s (the first dictionary definition) claiming instead that the word was “evaluated” (a second dictionary definition) not the first. This wasn’t a mistranslation, it was a blatant effort to cover up what the authors of the report really meant. Seems both you and the Synod authors of the Report have problems with the truth.
P.S. as to “but I would NEVER stoop to questioning your sexuality. You should be ashamed of yourself. What you did was disgusting and shameful”, you had no problems whatsoever doing it to poor old Michaelangelo, did you. Shame on you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.