Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: B-Chan;Havoc;SoothingDave
(Reggie as quoted by B-Chan) Catholics] aren't taught that [any practice of homosexuality outside of man-woman marriageis intrinsically evil and sinful] via the catechism. Where is the "official" teaching?

(The actual post from which this "quote" was copied.)

Any practice of homosexuality, pedophilia, or other non-chaste sexuality -- whether by priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis, imams, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, animists, Trekkies, or any other human beings -- is intrinsically evil and sinful.

(The actual words.)But you aren't taught that via the catechism. Where is the "official" teaching?

(B-Chan) Wrong. The Catechism clearly teaches that all unchaste sexual activity -- sexual activity other than that conducted out of love between husband and wife under the sacrament of marriage -- is "intrinsically disordered", i.e. sinful.

You won't be making a place for yourself on this forum if you continue to manufacture quotes and then attacking your manufactured "straw man". In the future, it would be better if you make a real attempt to play straight.

We have been playing a word game with you and SoothingDave.

Intrinsically evil is not remotely the same as Intrinsically disordered. Don't insult one's intelligence by insisting "disordered" is synonomous with "evil".
------------------------------------------------------------

Your assertion that the Catechism does not condemn any sexuality outside of man-woman marriage is thus refuted.

I made no such assertion. If words mean anything to you use them well and honestly.
31,143 posted on 02/28/2002 3:58:06 PM PST by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31079 | View Replies ]


To: OLD REGGIE
I did quote you honestly.
I said: "Any practice of homosexuality, pedophilia, or other non-chaste sexuality -- whether by priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis, imams, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, animists, Trekkies, or any other human beings -- is intrinsically evil and sinful."

You responded: "But you aren't taught that [referring to the above quote] via the catechism. Where is the "official" teaching?

1. You asked me to show you where the Catechism teaches "that".

2. "That" = "Any practice of homosexuality, pedophilia, or other non-chaste sexuality -- whether by priests, Protestant ministers, rabbis, imams, Buddhists, Hindus, Shinto, animists, Trekkies, or any other human beings -- is intrinsically evil and sinful."

3. "Homosexuality, pedophilia, or other non-chaste sexual acts" = "acts outside of man-woman marriage".

4. Therefore, my quotation of your words (with my interpolation "any practice of homosexuality outside of man-woman marriage is intrinsically evil and sinful" properly signified by brackets) was neither manufactured nor a straw man. I merely restated your question. I did not change its basic form or substance.

You were in fact asking me to show where the Catechism teaches that "any practice of homosexuality outside of man-woman marriage is intrinsically evil and sinful". I did so.

You won't be making a place for yourself on this forum if you continue to manufacture quotes and then attacking your manufactured "straw man". In the future, it would be better if you make a real attempt to play straight.

I'm not seeking to "making a place for myself" on FR. My purpose in this thread is to refute falsehoods about the Church. I neither manufacture quotes nor set up straw men nor play word games. I don't need to. I have posted actual evidence from the Catechism to counter each falsehood about the teachings of the Church spread here; I'll leave the semantics and accusations for others.

Intrinsically evil is not remotely the same as Intrinsically disordered. Don't insult one's intelligence by insisting "disordered" is synonomous with "evil".

A person therefore sins mortally not only when his action comes from direct contempt for love of God and neighbor, but also when he consciously and freely, for whatever reason, chooses something which is seriously disordered. For in this choice, as has been said above, there is already included contempt for the Divine commandment: the person turns himself away from God and loses charity. Now according to Christian tradition and the Church's teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.
"A person therefore sins mortally... when he consciously and freely... chooses something which is seriously disordered." Moral disorder = sin.
It is true that in sins of the sexual order, in view of their kind and their causes, it more easily happens that free consent is not fully given; this is a fact which calls for caution in all judgment as to the subject's responsibility. In this matter it is particularly opportune to recall the following words of Scripture: "Man looks at appearances but God looks at the heart." However, although prudence is recommended in judging the subjective seriousness of a particular sinful act, it in no way follows that one can hold the view that in the sexual field mortal sins are not committed. Persona Humana

"There is a disconcerting amount of confusion among some Catholics with regard to the Church's teaching about homosexuality. Crucial distinctions are often lost, such as that between orientation and activity. Many of those questioning the recent Notification seem to believe that the Church teaches that people with homosexual orientation are themselves intrinsically evil or disordered. The Church's rejection of homosexual activity is taken to be a rejection of them as persons. Lying, malicious gossip, murder, racism, fornication are intrinsically evil acts. To assert that an action is intrinsically evil is not to assert that those who commit these sins are themselves intrinsically evil. To call the homosexual inclination "intrinsically disordered" is not to pass judgment on any individual's mental or moral state. It means that this inclination does not correspond to God's plan for sexuality whose purpose is to unite a man and a woman in the loving union of marriage and to enable them to be co-creators of new life. " Source: NCCB

I said: "Your assertion that the Catechism does not condemn any sexuality outside of man-woman marriage is thus refuted."

You replied: "I made no such assertion."

You certainly did. See the beginning of this post.

31,150 posted on 02/28/2002 4:51:59 PM PST by B-Chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31143 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson