Gross mischaracterizations - no. Just a flatfooted dealing with the answer you gave. I wasn't aware that another lessen in Catholic terminology was going to be required in order to understand the Official statement. You almost have to be a lawyer to follow it, don't you. Find peice a, connect it with peice b, etc, and eventually, it says what you want. Seems to me - as it always has - there is something intrinsically disordered about that. Especially when I can go to scripture and pull four passages out (not single verses) that spell it out plainly. It's plain enough to your side that your own people were telling me that homosexuality isn't a sin and is not called a sin in the Bible. Now, Given the official position and the mass exodus to attack what I quoted from scripture.. care to comment on how you guys can believe and speak plainly opposite of what you say is the official position?
Yes, it isn't written for fourth graders. one is thought to be familiar with the idea that evil things are sins, that things against natural law are sins, that disorders ae against the natural law. That chastity has a meaning beyond "not having sex." Etc.
Perhaps next time you will remember that there are meanings assigned to words, that nuance exists and that the Catechism is very precise in what it says, without being reduced to the lowest common denominator.
Maybe next time you will ask questions about what things mean, rather than assuming the worst and running with it.
Seems to me - as it always has - there is something intrinsically disordered about that. Especially when I can go to scripture and pull four passages out (not single verses) that spell it out plainly.
You do your own synthesis from the verses. It is no different than what the Catechism does, other than the fact that our language is more confusing to the uninitiated, or the one used to a simple manner of expression.
It's plain enough to your side that your own people were telling me that homosexuality isn't a sin and is not called a sin in the Bible.
No they weren't. they were saying that people we consider "homosexual" but living in chastity are not sinners. These same people you no longer consider "homosexual" or sinners. So we agree, but are using different terminology.
Now, Given the official position and the mass exodus to attack what I quoted from scripture..
People did not attack Scripture. People attacked your idea that Scripture speaking of acts referred to the people identified above, whom we consider "chaste homosexuals" and you consider not homosexual at all. No one attacked Scripture.
care to comment on how you guys can believe and speak plainly opposite of what you say is the official position?
Who did that? Homosexual acts are sinful. Thining about these acts is sinful. Living a lifestyle of sin is sinful.
Resisting temptation and living a truly chaste life is not sinful. This is the official position and this is all everyone was saying.
SD