Being Gay

[Jack4]

43 minutes ago, Makarioi said:

 

God doesn't hate the damned, He hates the sin.  To land there, you sin is a serious matter, committed with the knowledge that what you're doing is serious wrong and with full deliberation and consent on the part of the will.  You can't commit mortal sin by accident, therefore you an't go to hell by accident. 

 

I agree with the last sentence; yet I hold on to what I said. The following are from a theologian friend (who is faithful to the Church):

Quote

... I HATE the damned souls, here and now. I curse them. God HATES the damned souls, He damned them after all. He loves them only as a use. What use? As instruments to glorify those in heaven. Nothing more. If they were unknown by the blessed, then they would not serve that purpose, through the manifestation of God's justice and their continued existence would be for nothing.

 

Quote

.. God does hate the damned. Note, I didn't say sinful wayfarer. He who still is a wayfarer is still loved by God as more than a use. But the DAMNED are not

Quote

 

...to will any good to the damned, any love either of beneficence or benevolence, is directly contrary to the will of God. How could it not be? Their lot is wholly just. To will any good to them, would mean to will that they be improved, but they are wholly where they are supposed to be. This is true too of the blessed, but there we have as an object of our love the blessing they have received. We do not will the further good, but we rejoice in the good they possess and have benevolence to them in their enjoyment.

I am glad for the suffering of the damned. I am not glad that people have ended up there. But I accept, indeed love, the justice of God. How could I not?

 

Quote

I hate Judas. I hope he is suffering. Just as I hate the devil, and think his torment laudable. If I had any doubt, and was not at least morally certain of his damnation, then my attitude would be wrong, yes? But it is the attitude of virtually every Father and Saint that mentions Judas. Though they held it better than I for sure, moved more for love of God in delighting in the punishment of the damned.

Quote

 

We need to distinguish several things

1. Good is the SAME as existence in thing subject. Good is existence under the aspect of desirable, that is as the object of the will, something that perfects.

2. The good of existence, said of man, is only a good in a certain respect. Good said of man simply refers to a man who is perfected, i.e. a good will, virtues, etc.

3. The good willed by God in hell and eternal punishment is not the good of the damned. But rather He wills the bonum commune in universale. That is, He is willing the common good, namely Himself as communicable. To put it another way, God wills the manifestation of His justice for the sake of His elect. 

4. God, therefore, does not love the damned one iota except as by a love of use, utility. He loves Himself, and He loves the elect in themselves as partakers in Him as the extrinsic common good of creation, and He loves us who are wayfarers, both in particular as He may will greater goods for one than another, and in common, as He wills certain goods to the entire human race, including the order of redemption. But in the damned where all communicability in the common Good is gone on their part, God does not love them. He hates the damned, as should we. He wills no good for them. Nor should we. But He wills certain goods to them "secundum quid" (in a certain respect) but not essentially, namely, e.g., the good of existence, in order that His justice may be manifested and Himself glorified in the glorification of His saints.

 

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Jack4

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

FYI to Jack: Hasan knew the answers he would receive to his question before he posted it. He's heard all the answers before.

Hasan may not be Catholic, but he knows a heck of a lot about Catholic theology--possibly even more than you. I'm not calling you uneducated, I'm just saying that because Hasan is older than you are, he has had more years to learn Catholic theology--you'll catch up.

In the meantime, you might want to read through past threads so you know what kinds of "general" topics have been "talked to death."

Note: If you read through old posts, DO NOT reply to them. Resurrecting dead posts annoys the heck out of people.

[Jack4]

19 minutes ago, IgnatiusofLoyola said:

FYI to Jack: Hasan knew the answers he would receive to his question before he posted it. He's heard all the answers before.

Hasan may not be Catholic, but he knows a heck of a lot about Catholic theology--possibly even more than you. I'm not calling you uneducated, I'm just saying that because Hasan is older than you are, he has had more years to learn Catholic theology--you'll catch up.

In the meantime, you might want to read through past threads so you know what kinds of "general" topics have been "talked to death."

Note: If you read through old posts, DO NOT reply to them. Resurrecting dead posts annoys the heck out of people.

Iggy,

When I decided to join this Forum, I was prepared to meet a lot of people who are smarter than me. Heck, it was the very reason why I even joined here. 

Nonetheless, when I read through Hasan's past threads, I found little discussions on faith. 

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

17 minutes ago, Jack4 said:

Iggy,

When I decided to join this Forum, I was prepared to meet a lot of people who are smarter than me. Heck, it was the very reason why I even joined here. 

Nonetheless, when I read through Hasan's past threads, I found little discussions on faith. 

Even if Hasan didn't start the threads, over the summer we have had LOTS and LOTS of general discussion on being gay and the Church's viewpoint. Mostly I ignore these threads because they are very repetitious and long and argumentative--not sure why I opened this one. IMNSHO we don't need another general thread. (And, whether these threads really belong in the Debate forum is another matter.)

In contrast, to me at least, CatherineM's recent post on her feelings about the elevating to the rank of Bishop of a gay priest was different. This was a specific situation, not a repetition of past threads.

Note: I am NOT saying that Hasan or anyone else is SMARTER than you, only that they are older, so have had more time to learn the complexities of the Catholic faith. I'm also trying to give you some helpful advice to prevent unintentional "newbie mistakes." Every forum has its own set of unwritten rules, and Phatmass is no different.

[xSilverPhinx]

 

[Socrates]

What's wrong with being happy?  

I'm confused.

[EmilyAnn]

 

[Papist]

[dominicansoul]

11 hours ago, Socrates said:

What's wrong with being happy?  

I'm confused.

I'm almost positive the Church wants us all to be gay. Especially in times of trials and sufferings...

[Ice_nine]

On 9/17/2016 at 5:58 PM, Hasan said:

Some people think it is 'ok' to 'be gay' but others disagree. How does the Church come down (no pun intended) on this issue?

your mom is gay

[Peace]

On 9/18/2016 at 11:18 AM, IgnatiusofLoyola said:

Hasan may not be Catholic, but he knows a heck of a lot about Catholic theology--possibly even more than you. I'm not calling you uneducated, I'm just saying that because Hasan is older than you are, he has had more years to learn Catholic theology--you'll catch up.

I've got my money on Jack4.

[Selah]

On 9/18/2016 at 10:48 AM, Jack4 said:

I agree with the last sentence; yet I hold on to what I said. The following are from a theologian friend (who is faithful to the Church):

 

 

This is not the teaching of the Church. What your friend espouses is more in line with reformed christianity, such as calvinism which is rejected by the church. In the nicest way possible, your friend is misinformed. Especially in Eastern Churches, hell is understood as being hell because of the person's rejection of God. Fire refines, or it burns. To the saved, it refines, but to the damned it burns. The fire stays fire. It's the condition of the person that makes it heaven or hell. Fire is God's love, and it is wonderful to the saved and terrible to the lost. God will love all people for eternity, but not everyone enjoys it. 

On the other hand, reformed Christianity teaches that the fire is the wrath of God. John Calvin especially taught this, but his entire system of theology was rejected by the Church. Everything you have posted from your friend, down to "the elect" is Calvinism and not in line with church teaching. We are not called to hate anyone, not even the damned. 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Selah

[Norseman82]

23 hours ago, Socrates said:

What's wrong with being happy?

I'm confused.

Because somebody had to post it:

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by Norseman82

[Amppax]

4 hours ago, Selah said:

This is not the teaching of the Church. What your friend espouses is more in line with reformed christianity, such as calvinism which is rejected by the church. In the nicest way possible, your friend is misinformed. Especially in Eastern Churches, hell is understood as being hell because of the person's rejection of God. Fire refines, or it burns. To the saved, it refines, but to the damned it burns. The fire stays fire. It's the condition of the person that makes it heaven or hell. Fire is God's love, and it is wonderful to the saved and terrible to the lost. God will love all people for eternity, but not everyone enjoys it. 

On the other hand, reformed Christianity teaches that the fire is the wrath of God. John Calvin especially taught this, but his entire system of theology was rejected by the Church. Everything you have posted from your friend, down to "the elect" is Calvinism and not in line with church teaching. We are not called to hate anyone, not even the damned. 

 

Though I largely agree with what you have here, there is quite a bit in what Jack4 had (the part from his "friend") which is, in certain respects, in line with a possible reading of Augustinian and Thomistic theological traditions. I would argue that it isn't either authentically Augustinian or Thomistic, but that's a different debate. 

That being said, what is there is, from an Eastern Catholic perspective, totally off. I'm not as familiar with the rites from India as the Byzantine rites, but it sounds far too western to be in line with Eastern theology. 

[Jack4]

That friend is a Latin Church Catholic. He is a Thomist, and has some formal degree. I don't believe he would knowingly reject the teaching of the Church. Is there anything you want to tell him?