Gay Cancer

[Jaime]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402918' date='Oct 15 2007, 06:15 AM']I am always amazed by your constant desire for apologies.

I will apologize to you, when you apologize to Jesus Christ for misrepresenting the teaching of His Church.[/quote]

Funny.. I don't recall asking for one before

The point Todd is that what you accuse me of doing is what the Holy Father is doing. So I'm fine with the accusations considering the company I keep

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1402756' date='Oct 14 2007, 11:51 PM']The last time I checked, so is hot stuff.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure I just suffered a minor heart attack.

They DO have internet in Iowa.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402678' date='Oct 14 2007, 11:02 PM']Paul Newman![/quote]
Are these additions necessary?

[PapaHilarious]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1402756' date='Oct 14 2007, 09:51 PM']The last time I checked, so is hot stuff.[/quote]

Good point, Cam42.

[XIX]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402918' date='Oct 15 2007, 07:15 AM']I am always amazed by your constant desire for apologies.

I will apologize to you, when you apologize to Jesus Christ for misrepresenting the teaching of His Church.[/quote]
He's is very clearly not. Apo, you are making a total mockery of your position.

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1402982' date='Oct 15 2007, 11:07 AM']Are these additions necessary?[/quote]


Yes my good woman they are necessary insofar as I am what is being dissected and debated.

[hyperdulia again]

Ashton Kutcher!

[Aloysius]

[quote name='XIX' post='1403062' date='Oct 15 2007, 05:10 PM']He's is very clearly not. Apo, you are making a total mockery of your position.[/quote]
He's very clearly not. He's understandably frustrated by the ambiguity of some of the statements which could lead to confusion and indeed, misrepresentation of the positions of the Church. because it is attempting to say that the "homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" which means, basically, that the homosexual desire is not disordered by its very nature. This is incorrect, but he is sure he is correct because he is applying a basic algorithm based upon when the Church has used one term or another in the Catechism.

He ought to be more clear, and hold a more tenable position, that "the sexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" but that, when focused on a disordered object like a member of the same sex, it is objectively disordered. His lack of clarity in defining what desire it is "not intrinsically disordered" does indeed begin to misrepresent the teachings of Christ's Church.

it is absolutely false to say that "the homosexual desire is not intrinsically disordered"; if you wish to contend the use of "intrinsic" as applied to desires in their most base definitions, ie sex desires, food desires, et cetera, then fine: make that distinction clear. But if you say that phrase, you are basically saying that a desire for homosexual sex is not, by its very nature,

fyi, hot stuff, Cam's definition of intrinsic is the same as the one I offered. whether or not it ought to be used with "desires" in general, you ought to be more precise in what you're saying is not "intrinsically disordered"

[hyperdulia again]

What about gay minors drinking?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402916' date='Oct 15 2007, 03:58 AM']Wonders never cease.[/quote]


Nice to see you too, Appy.

[quote name='Apotheuoun']Homosexual desires are disordered per se (i.e., they are intrinsically disordered), because they are directed toward that which is evil in all cases (contra naturam). Now, the fact that hot stuff is incapable of distinguishing between desires that are contra naturam and desires that are contra rationem is of course sad, but with the poor state of Catholic education in the United States over the last forty years it is not all that surprising.[/quote]

The distinction is subtle, but nevertheless it is there....you are flawed insofar as a desire cannot be intrinsic to anything, because it is not something that is actual. A desire is simply that a desire. A desire is no more sinful than a thought. A desire can be no more intrinsic than a wish. A desire can be morally wrong from an objective point of view, but it can never be more than that, until it is acted upon. Now an action can be intrinsic, but a desire cannot.

[quote name=''Aloysius']He ought to be more clear, and hold a more tenable position, that "the sexual desire is not intrinsically disordered" but that, when focused on a disordered object like a member of the same sex, it is objectively disordered....But if you say that phrase, you are basically saying that a desire for homosexual sex is not, by its very nature,...[/quote]

Now Al, you are correct, he ought be more clear, but a desire cannot be intrinsic, it can be objectively wrong from a moral point of view. That is most certainly the case.

And btw, I know that you know that I know that you know we are using the same definitions.

[Aloysius]

I mentioned the definitions because earlier I was told I was secularizing the definitions.

there is a difference between saying that a desire is intrinsic to a human person, and saying a desire is intrinsically something. the former speaks to the nature of the human person, the latter to the nature of the desire itself. as I began saying in this thread: the "homosexual desire" is not something intrinsic to the human person, no human is intrinsically a homosexual (Apotheoun emphasizes this by refusing to use the term "homosexual" to refer to such a person)

however, what Apotheoun has been doing is labeling the "homosexual desire" as "intrinsically disordered", with "intrinsic" referring to the nature of the homosexual desire, not the nature of the person. just for clarity's sake, that's an important thing to keep in mind. your response to Apo, Cam, says that a desire cannot be intrinsic TO something; there's a difference between that, and the desire being intrinsically something, referring to the nature of the desire.

this can put some obscurity into Apo's side, with "intrinsically" sounding like it might refer to the nature of the person... linguistically, from the phrase "the homosexual desire is intrinsically disordered", I could see that interpretation; but from the context of all of Apo's posts, it becomes clear that he does not mean this.

[hyperdulia again]

There is something Pharisaic about the Catholic obsession with parsing. It does not seem to me that there is a substantive disagreement going on here, or that there is anything useful to the homosexual person (the Church's phrase, not mine) who is trying to live a life in conformity with the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. I wish there was some way to explain how unproductive fighting about what are quite honestly vagueries (and these are vagueries, the teaching is unclear enough for orthodox Catholics to without twisting or letting personal consideration bleed in to have genuine disagreements) is for persons who struggle to control what feels to them as a fundamental and good part of their nature (regardless of the ontological facts of the matter).

Who, in the name of Jesus-God, does this thread help?

Breathless before God and His Church, I beg you to stop treating other people's lives as academic concerns.

Edited October 16, 2007 by hyperdulia again

[Aloysius]

Jeremy Sumpter!

oops.. ... did I say that?... never mind... back to my academic smokescreen.

[hyperdulia again]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1403272' date='Oct 15 2007, 09:43 PM']Jeremy Sumpter!

oops.. ... did I say that?... never mind... back to my academic smokescreen.[/quote]

Beloved Al.......

[Socrates]

While I'll let the "Church scholars" debate the deep theological meaning of "intrinsic" and "objective," I think the main point should be clear:
Homosexual desires/attactions ARE in themselves disordered (objectively disordered). They are by their very nature NOT rightly ordered, and to act on them in any way is sinful.

While one can quibble as to exactly [i]how[/i] it is disordered, the fact remains that the homosexual "orientation" is a disordered condition.
It cannot be truthfully maintained that homosexual desire/attraction is no less disordered than heterosexual desire/attraction. Yes, heterosexual desire can be made disordered and perverted by sin, the truth is that in itself "heterosexual" attraction (sexual desire of a man for a woman or woman for a man) is the right ordering of human sexuality. Homosexual attraction is not, and can never be rightly ordered.

If one does not act or wilfully indulge a disordered desire, he commits no sin, but this does not mean that the desire itself disordered.

On these points, I think every sound Catholic should be able to agree.

While only God can judge hot stuff's inner intents, given his history of posting on Phatmass, on which he almost always seems to come down on the "pro-gay" side of debates on the topic (i.e laws restricting "gay marriage," homosexuals in seminaries, etc.), it can at least be easy to see why some of us "old-timers" are suspicious of his intents in debate.
([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52632"]Here's an old thread on a similar topic[/url].)