Aloysius Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 hot stuff, are you saying that the desire is not disordered by its very nature? Unless you are saying that, then the desire is intrinsically disordered. The fact that the Church uses the two different terms does NOT mean the Church makes a distinction based upon the terminology, the whole phrases and situations are described for the purposes of distinguishing, but the Church is not saying "objectively disordered" is not also "intrinsically disordered", she uses the term "objectively" to specify that this particular intrinsically disordered thing is intrinsically disordered in the objective sense. She's not saying "it's not intrinsically disordered, it's objectively disordered", her reasoning can be summarized better as "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and in the objective sense the desire for homosexual acts is intrinsically disordered; however, the person who experiences those desires is not intrinsically disordered." anyway, I feel like I'm being ignored. posts too long (i'll cut this one short)? or am I on ignore? ah well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 ahem Brad Pitt! Hugh Grant! Tom Cruise! Jon Rhys-Meyers! Jude Law! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1402162' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:37 AM']hot stuff, are you saying that the desire is not disordered by its very nature? Unless you are saying that, then the desire is intrinsically disordered. The fact that the Church uses the two different terms does NOT mean the Church makes a distinction based upon the terminology, the whole phrases and situations are described for the purposes of distinguishing, but the Church is not saying "objectively disordered" is not also "intrinsically disordered", she uses the term "objectively" to specify that this particular intrinsically disordered thing is intrinsically disordered in the objective sense. She's not saying "it's not intrinsically disordered, it's objectively disordered", her reasoning can be summarized better as "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and in the objective sense the desire for homosexual acts is intrinsically disordered; however, the person who experiences those desires is not intrinsically disordered." anyway, I feel like I'm being ignored. posts too long (i'll cut this one short)? or am I on ignore? ah well...[/quote] Al you're secularizing the terms Its not "in the objective sense" objectively disordered deals with the prevention of procreation. That's how it is used. And as to the rest of it. No disrespect but that's your guess. Its not fact. And in fact its wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 Ben Affleck! Matt Damon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 [quote name='hot stuff' post='1402161' date='Oct 13 2007, 11:37 PM']And Todd Are you accusing the Holy Father of the same thing that you accuse me? You never responded[/quote] No, I am not accusing the pope of anything, but I am saying that you are not taking into account the difference between desires that are intrinsically disordered (i.e., desires contrary to nature) and desires that are accidentally disordered (i.e., natural desires that are not governed by right reason with the intention of acquiring the proper measure of virtue). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) Sorry to step in folks, but for laymen like myself, mind explaining what the difference between an "objective evil" versus an "intrinsic" one is. Ty Edited October 14, 2007 by mortify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 [quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402155' date='Oct 13 2007, 11:31 PM']Apo I think your use of the term pathological is misguided. Anywho...I think the thread should be one dedicated to commiserating with me over the fact that I can't watch Brad Pitt movies. This is a tragedy.[/quote] Complain to the CDF, because I was referring to a quotation from one of their documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XIX Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1402162' date='Oct 14 2007, 02:37 AM']hot stuff, are you saying that the desire is not disordered by its very nature? Unless you are saying that, then the desire is intrinsically disordered. The fact that the Church uses the two different terms does NOT mean the Church makes a distinction based upon the terminology, the whole phrases and situations are described for the purposes of distinguishing, but the Church is not saying "objectively disordered" is not also "intrinsically disordered", she uses the term "objectively" to specify that this particular intrinsically disordered thing is intrinsically disordered in the objective sense. She's not saying "it's not intrinsically disordered, it's objectively disordered", her reasoning can be summarized better as "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, and in the objective sense the desire for homosexual acts is intrinsically disordered; however, the person who experiences those desires is not intrinsically disordered." anyway, I feel like I'm being ignored. posts too long (i'll cut this one short)? or am I on ignore? ah well...[/quote] You might be right, the problem is that Apontheon has been so ridiculous that it is making your position look bad. I haven't shut the door on the possibility that the desire can be both objectively and intrinsically disordered. I think the Church would have clarified that, however, if that was the case. I think the Church means for us to assume that it is one and not the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402175' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:50 AM']No, I am not accusing the pope of anything, but I am saying that you are not taking into account the difference between desires that are intrinsically disordered (i.e., desires contrary to nature) and desires that are accidentally disordered (i.e., natural desires that are not governed by right reason with the intention of acquiring the proper measure of virtue).[/quote] You said that because I referred to some as being homosexual I was attempting to normalize it I showed you how the Holy Father did the same so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1402179' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:53 AM']Complain to the CDF, because I was referring to a quotation from one of their documents.[/quote] Firstly the CDF is not an infallible organ. Secondly I think you've misunderstood the CDF. Thirdly it's ok with me that you disagree, if you are right I'd like to come to believe as you do, but I have only ever heard homosexuality referred to as (always?) pathological by you and a few psychiatrists before the 70's. God Bless (and unlike when you say it to poor hot stuff, I mean it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) And we should all be in bed. Missing Mass because you were up late fighting with other Catholics is DEFINITELY a mortal sin. Edited October 14, 2007 by hyperdulia again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 hot stuff, could you please provide me with a definition of "intrinsic" and "objective" from the standpoint of moral theology, with a citation. I have been known to extend more philosophical definitions of words to doctrinal/theological matters, and am often resistant to some more restrictive definitions of them that seem to place arbitrary distinctions that do not flow from the definitions of the words. Also, a simple question just to help me understand your position: do you believe that the homosexual desire is intrinsic to the person who has it? It seems that your system might necessitate that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyperdulia again Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 George Clooney! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 (edited) [quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402185' date='Oct 14 2007, 03:02 AM']And we should all be in bed. Missing Mass because you were up late fighting with other Catholics is DEFINITELY a mortal sin.[/quote] Edited October 14, 2007 by Mateo el Feo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 [quote name='hyperdulia again' post='1402155' date='Oct 14 2007, 01:31 AM']Anywho...I think the thread should be one dedicated to commiserating with me over the fact that I can't watch Brad Pitt movies. This is a tragedy.[/quote] I'd offer to quit watching movies out of loyalty to you, but given all the names you've begun listing.... I'd never watch any thing again. Granted, my movie-going is severely limited since I've got 3 kids.... but I can rent darn it, and I fully intend to continue renting. 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