Interesting distinction, Tony. You, at least, speak of 'homosexual acts' whereas others, including Folau, speak of 'homosexuals'. This conflation of orientation and 'acts' somehow never happens with heterosexual orientation and heterosexual 'acts' because, of course, how silly would be to say 'all heterosexuals are hellbound'?
And, as you elude to, the CCC makes the distinction quite clear.2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
IMHO the conflation of orientation with action, if done repetitively, would be a reasonable candidate for 'unjust discrimination'.
You don't have a problem with homosexual acts, so why not just acknowledge it, admit we don't share a catholic faith on this and move on, rather than conduct these tedious, logistically gymnastic, non-catholic discussions on biblical interpretation, act and actor etc.
I think you're trying to 'verbal' me, Tony!
In all the time of ventured into this topic I can't recall ever giving an opinion on 'acts', homosexual or heterosexual. If that, for you, is evidence that I 'don't have a problem with homosexual acts', that really is your problem.
As our friend Alex says, '... I don't spend my life pondering over the sexual life of people ...'.
The reason God gave up on those above was their "Non Serviam"
Are you willing to tell the hapless reader who you think the 'those above' are this context?
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »