Nihil Obstat Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='08 July 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1278633288' post='2139527'] Apparently someone disagrees with us Didy and thinks God does make some people born with Down's syndrome. [/quote] Well it could be called His passive will, certainly, could it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 July 2010 - 08:04 PM' timestamp='1278633841' post='2139530'] Well it could be called His passive will, certainly, could it not? [/quote] Why? and if you were to argue that, then it would have to apply to all conditions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='08 July 2010 - 07:08 PM' timestamp='1278634119' post='2139532'] Why? and if you were to argue that, then it would have to apply to all conditions [/quote] Isn't everything that happens either God's active or passive will? If a homosexual predisposition does indeed exist, and it isn't God's active will, then it would have to be His passive will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 July 2010 - 08:28 PM' timestamp='1278635316' post='2139535'] Isn't everything that happens either God's active or passive will? If a homosexual predisposition does indeed exist, and it isn't God's active will, then it would have to be His passive will. [/quote] Soc's statement "God doesn't make gays" is true So is "God doesn't make people with Down's Syndrome" because both would be resultant of God's active Will if he did. But since you bring up God's passive Will, you may have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='hot stuff' date='08 July 2010 - 07:31 PM' timestamp='1278635476' post='2139536'] Soc's statement "God doesn't make gays" is true So is "God doesn't make people with Down's Syndrome" because both would be resultant of God's active Will if he did. But since you bring up God's passive Will, you may have a point. [/quote] That's all I was saying. In my opinion there's nothing less Catholic about accepting that it is possible that some people are born predisposed to same sex attraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 July 2010 - 09:34 PM' timestamp='1278635669' post='2139539'] That's all I was saying. In my opinion there's nothing less Catholic about accepting that it is possible that some people are born predisposed to same sex attraction. [/quote] It seems to me that the purpose of matter is to predispose. I have read some saints who make the comment that some people are given trials specific to them so that they may get to heaven. They are given this to sacrifice and purify them or else they may not make it. This makes sense since the purpose of matter is to create certain conditions (no one faults God for humanity not being able to fly, inherently limits choices and pushes us to learn science). However, I don't know if you could make the comment of passive will. If you say that God passively wills things such as this, you allow for the possibility of saying that God passively willed our first parents to sin. I would make a distinction between passively willing and permitting the natural results of actions due to the free will of another being (such as sin) as well as the natural consequences of being certain types of beings (material beings, since to have matter is to be instanciated and thus to be limited). He can turn these things towards good even though it may not have been His original will that they be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='08 July 2010 - 08:43 PM' timestamp='1278639806' post='2139555'] It seems to me that the purpose of matter is to predispose. I have read some saints who make the comment that some people are given trials specific to them so that they may get to heaven. They are given this to sacrifice and purify them or else they may not make it. This makes sense since the purpose of matter is to create certain conditions (no one faults God for humanity not being able to fly, inherently limits choices and pushes us to learn science). However, I don't know if you could make the comment of passive will. If you say that God passively wills things such as this, you allow for the possibility of saying that God passively willed our first parents to sin. I would make a distinction between passively willing and permitting the natural results of actions due to the free will of another being (such as sin) as well as the natural consequences of being certain types of beings (material beings, since to have matter is to be instanciated and thus to be limited). He can turn these things towards good even though it may not have been His original will that they be so. [/quote] I thought the passive will is the same as just saying that He allowed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 July 2010 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1278640403' post='2139560'] I thought the passive will is the same as just saying that He allowed it. [/quote] I would make a distinction between the two. A point I shall make later, but do not have time to now. The post will be made tonight though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='08 July 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1278642280' post='2139578'] I would make a distinction between the two. A point I shall make later, but do not have time to now. The post will be made tonight though. [/quote] I have no formal theological training, so I may be using technical terms incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='08 July 2010 - 11:35 PM' timestamp='1278642959' post='2139598'] I have no formal theological training, so I may be using technical terms incorrectly. [/quote] Not really much theological terms in this but a simple distinction that I would make or in this case try to not have to make. OK. Now, to say all that happens is God's passive will because He allows it is wrong in my opinion. Firstly, I would not make a distinction in will for God. Being is one (especially the fullness of being and I think placing a distinction in God's will between active and passive is unwise for the One who describes Himself as[i] "I am"[/i] nor is it wise to insinuate that there is a full will (active) and a not quite as full/active will (passive) in a being which is the fullness of being since to do so would be to attribute not the fullness of being to a part of God who is full actuality and has no potentiality (nothing that is not the fullness of being within Him). God wills creation into being. God will humanity in such a way that it has a rational soul and as such has free choice and can know anything (very different from saying one can learn everything or even saying that one can know everything fully since one might state that He knows God but would never ever dare state he knows God fully.) and as such possesses a type of limitlessness (in being able to choose anything and learn any ). However, humanity is finite and limited in that it does not have the fullness of being and has a body (matter, materiality, specific limiting factors: height, strength, speed by moving legs, no wings etc). This is how He wills the human being to be. He has a plan for the best that He wants us to follow. He is not responsible when we misuse our wills and sin. He gave us our wills and we misuse them. It cannot be said that it was His will that brought sin about in the world or that it was His will that we sin since He created our wills any more than one can say that an employer is responsible for how an employee spends their check. An employee is paid for their work (such is the nature of being an employee) and the employer is not responsible for how the employee enacts his will and spends his money. No one would ever hold an employer responsible if one his employees one night bought a gun and killed someone. one would hold that murderer responsible. Granted, this is not a perfect example b/c God has the power to stop our action at any point. However, to do such a thing as to stop us in action would be to destroy our wills, something which uniquely separates us from beasts. In a sense, to take away our free will would "un-create" us as humans since it would take away something that is integral to the human person and something that truly makes the human person the being that it is. Thus we are left with the original point of not holding God responsible for our mistakes. Now, the consequence of The Fall was the breaking of humanity and nature. This is obviously not God's will. However, He turns all things for Good, which is His will. Thus, He would allow the results of our actions, since He is the Creator not un-creator (sin is what destroys being not God), but would turn them for the good, allow our sufferings to purify us so we may grow closer to Him, and would save us so that if we choose we may return to full unity with Him in the person of Jesus Christ (St. Anselm has more to say on this in [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i]- quite good, I highly recommend it). In this way, God allows our actions to have results, allows the results to be (disorder, birth defects, pain, suffering), but turns them to God and allows these things to radiate His glory (how many times in the Bible or in the lives of the Saints do we read of a vision of Christ in Heaven with God's grace and glory coming through Christ's wounds?). God wills our redemption, God wills our being and contributes our being. What is contributed by our parents is our broken humanity, which was not after the fall and is not as God wills. (Thomas and scholastics made a distinction between nature and being, which I think is wise. God is complete Being, He is. He has no essence or nature which limits Him. We do have a nature/essence which limits our being. It is human nature and we broke it). This broken and disordered humanity is a result of our breaking communion with God and not in any way attached to His will. It is also not a result of our own sin (since humanity was already broken before we got here). In this way, we can say that homosexuality is not sinful in and of itself (just a part of disordered humanity (which is no scandal since each of us is broken and disordered in some way or another in our humanity) but that acting on such a distortion of God's plan would be a sin (just as acting on any other distortion would be) and is in no way attached to Gods will ("actively" or "passively"). His will is that is may be fixed and not obliterated and that we may be saved. Hope this explains a bit. Tried to keep it as "un-technical" as possible. Edited July 9, 2010 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' date='08 July 2010 - 10:56 PM' timestamp='1278647773' post='2139650'] Not really much theological terms in this but a simple distinction that I would make. OK. Now, to say all that happens is God's passive will because He allows it is wrong in my opinion. Firstly, I would not make a distinction in will for God. Being is one (especially the fullness of being and I think placing a distinction in God's will between active and passive is unwise for the One who describes Himself as[i] "I am"[/i] nor is it wise to insinuate that there is a full will (active) and a not quite as full/active will (passive) in a being which is the fullness of being since to do so would be to attribute not the fullness of being to a part of God who is full actuality and has no potentiality (nothing that is not the fullness of being within Him). God wills creation into being. God will humanity in such a way that it has a rational soul and as such has free choice and can know anything (very different from saying one can learn everything or even saying that one can know everything fully since one might state that He knows God but would never ever dare state he knows God fully.) and as such possesses a type of limitlessness (in being able to choose anything and learn any ). However, humanity is finite and limited in that it does not have the fullness of being and has a body (matter, materiality, specific limiting factors: height, strength, speed by moving legs, no wings etc). This is how He wills the human being to be. He has a plan for the best that He wants us to follow. He is not responsible when we misuse our wills and sin. He gave us our wills and we misuse them. It cannot be said that it was His will that brought sin about in the world or that it was His will that we sin since He created our wills any more than one can say that an employer is responsible for how an employee spends their check. An employee is paid for their work (such is the nature of being an employee) and the employer is not responsible for how the employee enacts his will and spends his money. No one would ever hold an employer responsible if one his employees one night bought a gun and killed someone. one would hold that murderer responsible. Granted, this is not a perfect example b/c God has the power to stop our action at any point. However, to do such a thing as to stop us in action would be to destroy our wills, something which uniquely separates us from beasts. In a sense, to take away our free will would "un-create" us as humans since it would take away something that is integral to the human person and something that truly makes the human person the being that it is. Thus we are left with the original point of not holding God responsible for our mistakes. Now, the consequence of The Fall was the breaking of humanity and nature. This is obviously not God's will. However, He turns all things for Good, which is His will. Thus, He would allow the results of our actions, since He is the Creator not un-creator (sin is what destroys being not God), but would turn them for the good, allow our sufferings to purify us so we may grow closer to Him, and would save us so that if we choose we may return to full unity with Him in the person of Jesus Christ (St. Anselm has more to say on this in [i]Cur Deus Homo[/i]- quite good, I highly recommend it). In this way, God allows our actions to have results, allows the results to be (disorder, birth defects, pain, suffering), but turns them to God and allows these things to radiate His glory (how many times in the Bible or in the lives of the Saints do we read of a vision of Christ in Heaven with God's grace and glory coming through Christ's wounds?). God wills our redemption, God wills our being and contributes our being. What is contributed by our parents is our broken humanity, which was not after the fall and is not as God wills. (Thomas and scholastics made a distinction between nature and being, which I think is wise. God is complete Being, He is. He has no essence or nature which limits Him. We do have a nature/essence which limits our being. It is human nature and we broke it). This broken and disordered humanity is a result of our breaking communion with God and not in any way attached to His will. It is also not a result of our own sin (since humanity was already broken before we got here). In this way, we can say that homosexuality is not sinful in and of itself (just a part of disordered humanity (which is no scandal since each of us is broken and disordered in some way or another in our humanity) but that acting on such a distortion of God's plan would be a sin (just as acting on any other distortion would be) and is in no way attached to Gods will ("actively" or "passively"). His will is that is may be fixed and not obliterated and that we may be saved. Hope this explains a bit. Tried to keep it as "un-technical" as possible. [/quote] I need to save this for later. I can't get through it at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='CatherineM' date='08 July 2010 - 03:09 PM' timestamp='1278616199' post='2139388'] I wasn't trying to be politically correct. Not based on science, just personal experience and observation. By being born with it, I visualize something similar to schizophrenia or bipolar. You can be born with the genetic predisposition and it takes something later in life, usually a stressor or chemical use, to trigger the full blown illness. I can visualize something similar for those with SSA. They have a genetic predisposition or an invitro hormonal imbalance that sets them up for a later transition.[/quote] That remains completely unproven hypothesis, though many treat such hypotheses as settled fact. I seriously doubt you've personally observed homosexual behavior in newborn infants. I suppose you could argue that people have inborn inclinations toward [i]any[/i] sinful behavior or perversion, though it's a stretch to go from there to declare that people are "born gay." I don't think babies are born "gay" anymore than they are born pedophiles. [quote]It's up to us as a society to nurture children in such a way that those who are predisposed don't go down the wrong path. Of course that's the case for lots of predispositions, like addiction or alcoholism or obesity. We seem to be failing kids across the board.[/quote] I agree with you here. While I don't think kids are "born gay," current society is pushing more and more people in that direction. I think the breakdown of the family has increased the amount of homosexual inclinations (research has linked a lot of homosexuality to childhood problems like weak or absent fathers), while pushing homosexuality as something natural and normal has no doubt caused many kids to get into that lifestyle who might otherwise have been able to overcome such inclinations. I don't think the "born gay" hypothesis should be treated as fact until it is solidly confirmed by science. Unfortunately, a lot of folks act like it's proven fact, and use this to say that homosexuals can never change, and that it is wrong for them to try to do so. It is also used to make homosexuality a legally protected category like race, rather than a pattern of behavior. Also, I should add, that as one who has a family member with Down's Syndrome, I find the comparison of DS to sexual perversion by some in this thread offensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 I find the implication that all gay people march in gay pride parades and flaunt their gayness everywhere to be offensive. I talk to quite a few kids who are attracted to the same-sex and none of them fit this description. It's not really fair to make a blanket assumption based on how a certain group is portrayed on tv (it's only the people who whine the loudest who get heard unfortunately) No, these kids usually suffer silently trying to dael with internal and external forces that can feel overwhelming and make them feel isolated, and I'm sure it makes them feel a whole lot better to read stuff about how evil and sick and twisted they are and how their parents just didn't love them enough. Sometimes people can't control how they feel. They can only control their actions and they need support from caring people in order to be successful in overcoming temptation. If that's what you really want, then it's really counterproductive to come off as judgemental (a word that is overused I know). I'm not saying we should encourage people to act on every feeling and impulse they have, but they need to be honest and acknowledge their inclinations instead of pretending those feelings aren't there to avoid judgement from others and hatred from themselves. I just see so many people trying to wrestle with this and their made to feel like a bunch of freaks who are more screwed up then the rest of us are (as if we are not all great sinners ourselves), and it's just so heartbreaking. One side says they're evil sinners who are dirtier than your average sinners and they other side tells them to jump on anything with a pulse otherwise they could be "repressing their sexuality" which is "psychologically damaging." How on earth does that help anyone? It's just one side yelling at the other ignoring the real people that get caught in the crossfire. I'm not trying to be argumentative. But people have confided in me about this so it's not merely abstract discussion to me I surpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 9, 2010 Share Posted July 9, 2010 [quote name='Ice_nine' date='09 July 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1278701183' post='2139991'] I find the implication that all gay people march in gay pride parades and flaunt their gayness everywhere to be offensive. I talk to quite a few kids who are attracted to the same-sex and none of them fit this description. It's not really fair to make a blanket assumption based on how a certain group is portrayed on tv (it's only the people who whine the loudest who get heard unfortunately)[/quote] No such implication was made. If you read my post, you'll note that I was saying that the issue was not with those people who were quietly struggling with personal homosexual inclinations, but with those who are publicly flaunting their homosexuality and publicly pushing for its acceptance and "legitimacy" in society. (Through things like the "gay pride" movement, pushing for "gay marriage," teaching homosexuality in grade school, etc.) I have nothing but respect for people who are honestly trying to overcome homosexual tendencies and lead chaste lives. I know a few on Phatmass. My problem is with the politicization of homosexuality and the whole "gay rights" movement, which has been very destructive in our society. [quote]No, these kids usually suffer silently trying to dael with internal and external forces that can feel overwhelming and make them feel isolated, and I'm sure it makes them feel a whole lot better to read stuff about how evil and sick and twisted they are and how their parents just didn't love them enough. Sometimes people can't control how they feel. They can only control their actions and they need support from caring people in order to be successful in overcoming temptation. If that's what you really want, then it's really counterproductive to come off as judgemental (a word that is overused I know). I'm not saying we should encourage people to act on every feeling and impulse they have, but they need to be honest and acknowledge their inclinations instead of pretending those feelings aren't there to avoid judgement from others and hatred from themselves. I just see so many people trying to wrestle with this and their made to feel like a bunch of freaks who are more screwed up then the rest of us are (as if we are not all great sinners ourselves), and it's just so heartbreaking. One side says they're evil sinners who are dirtier than your average sinners and they other side tells them to jump on anything with a pulse otherwise they could be "repressing their sexuality" which is "psychologically damaging." How on earth does that help anyone? It's just one side yelling at the other ignoring the real people that get caught in the crossfire. I'm not trying to be argumentative. But people have confided in me about this so it's not merely abstract discussion to me I surpose. [/quote] We need to love the sinner and hate the sin. You're really twisting a lot of what I wrote here. I never said anything hateful towards people, and don't advocate others doing so. However, I'm not going to water down the Church's moral teachings on sexual matters to avoid hurting people's feelings when these issues are brought up here. Pretending that homosexual activity isn't really that bad, or that homosexual inclinations are not disordered does not really do anyone a favor. We can't judge individual souls, but we can judge activities as objectively disordered and immoral, as the Church teaches. A lot of people aren't going to want to hear the truth on moral matters, but that doesn't mean we should avoid speaking the truth for fear of upsetting others. Avoiding speaking out on moral matters isn't true charity, but its opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted July 10, 2010 Share Posted July 10, 2010 [quote name='Socrates' date='08 July 2010 - 03:00 PM' timestamp='1278612059' post='2139363'] Alcoholics go to AA meetings to try to overcome their problems, while "gays" march in "pride parades." Therein lies the problem. [/quote] I guess that's where i thought an implication was. Don't know why gays is in quotes i guess. [quote name='Socrates' date='09 July 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1278712946' post='2140143'] We need to love the sinner and hate the sin. You're really twisting a lot of what I wrote here. I never said anything hateful towards people, and don't advocate others doing so.[/quote] Not really trying to twist what you say, but you gotta understand that there might be people lurking on here who are struggling with it and you need to look at what you say and hear the words from their POV. Sure you can say "that's not what I meant" but sometimes what you say and what people actually hear are two different things and i think with an issue as polarizing as this perhaps it might help to be a little sensitive as to bridge the gap of misunderstanding. [quote name='Socrates' date='09 July 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1278712946' post='2140143']However, I'm not going to water down the Church's moral teachings on sexual matters to avoid hurting people's feelings when these issues are brought up here. Pretending that homosexual activity isn't really that bad, or that homosexual inclinations are not disordered does not really do anyone a favor.[/quote] Yeah but I don't see why homosexuality is touted as the worst sexual sin out there. Or why there's so much more emphasis on homosexuality than other sexual sins like fornication, masturbation, adultery. Surely these also cripple society, but is it just my imagination that those aren't talked about with the same antipathy that homosexuality is? Why is that? I mean i guess it's highly political, but aguing politics and setting up a counter-agenda doesn't do much to heal the human persons caught between the two sides. [quote name='Socrates' date='09 July 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1278712946' post='2140143']A lot of people aren't going to want to hear the truth on moral matters, but that doesn't mean we should avoid speaking the truth for fear of upsetting others. Avoiding speaking out on moral matters isn't true charity, but its opposite. [/quote] That's not really my problem. Maybe you say people don't wanna hear the truth, but I feel like no one is willing to hear the people who are actually affected by this. Some small group forces a problematic ideology so you pick it apart and expose it for what it is. There's nothing wrong with that, but I just think that saying things like "homosexual disorientation is a choice" and that "it can be prayed away although it is hard" and "well there are no proven studies that show genetic blah blah blah" . . . have you ever talked to people dealing with this? most of them try so hard to find the opposite sex attractive but can't so then they just end up hating themselves and feeling overwhelmed and hopeless. at least in my experience. And it seems almost pretentious to say the aforementioned things without having walked in their shoes and listening to them. You need to try to understand someone to help them and that starts with listening and not with just barking truth at them. I don't see how it's inconceivable to see how an individual, perhaps lurking around, might perceive some of these things as condemnation of him/herself. It's two sides debating ideologies and whatnot. That debate is needed and I get it. But for the sake of those who are really dealing with internal and external forces that may or may not be in their control or partial-control, can't we take a bit of the edge off? Just in general maybe? I'm sorry it's late and i'm all over the place. So if it's incoherent it's the sleep-deprivation. I don't intend to be rude. I don't know you and although we seem to disagree you seem to be a respectable person. It's just when I read some things said in this thread, and shift my vantage point to someone dealing with these feelings, i see a lot of potential hurt. I think we can fix that while also proclaiming the truth in full. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now