@Ultraviolet On that occasion he said: “If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?" He was paraphrasing the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that people with homosexual inclinations should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized. Having a homosexual inclination is no more sinful than having an inclination toward pride. If you have an inclination for pride, but are following Christ and and trying to live a humble life, who is anyone to judge you? Of the many sins in the world, pride is among the worst. If you watch the whole video above, he explains his approach to people with homosexual inclinations.

"He was paraphrasing the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that people with homosexual inclinations should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized." @thomasvalle The Catechism of the Catholic Church says no such thing.. The words "delicacy" and "marginalized" don't even appear in paragraph 2358. Don't try re-writing it to suit your own agenda and apologetics for Pope Francis. I tend to notice. ;-)

Pope Francis' quote is contradicted by CCC 2357. If he says, "If a person is gay and seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to judge that person?" that goes against teachings of The Church which do pass judgement on the person. It states "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. "

People are judged by their actions. This is a basic tenet of Divine Law. We have every right, even a duty, to judge others accordingly.

"Having a homosexual inclination is no more sinful than having an inclination toward pride."

Wrong. A homosexual inclination leads one to one of the few mortal sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. An inclination of pride does not. Further, an inclination toward pride is not "objectively disordered". An inclination toward homosexuality, however, is.

"If you have an inclination for pride, but are following Christ and and trying to live a humble life, who is anyone to judge you?"

Those with an inclination to sin, often tend to indulge it. Those of us with an inclination to pride rarely make any effort "to live a humble life". The same lack of effort generally applies to those with far more unsavory inclinations.

"Of the many sins in the world, pride is among the worst."

So The Church teaches. Yet, pride does not lead sinners to corrupt society to suit their pride, or corrupt The Church into accepting pride as non-sinsful, nor does pride lead sinners to corrupt minors. Homosexuality leads homosexuals into all three.

Pride is a primarily internal sin and in this context, the worst it does is compel people like me to sneer at people like you for your lack of Catechism scholarship. ;-)

@Ultraviolet Realize that having an inclination is not a sin. Acting upon it is. That’s basic catechesis. Even you have inclinations for sin; everyone does. Thus the Church teaches to avoid the occasion of sin. Homosexual acts are sinful and intrinsically disordered, but as the catechism explains, “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.” In other words, such people are called to not act upon those inclinations so as to avoid sin. Note that the word “delicacy” and “marginalized” are synonyms for sensitivity and discrimination respectively as mentioned in the catechism.
Also just so you know, the use of artificial contraception is also a sin that is intrinsically disordered, as it frustrates the gift and purpose of sexuality.

Realize I notice you're moving the goalposts from which inclination is potentially more sinful to whether or not an inclination is sinful in itself.

...and you're still wrong. Inclinations become sins when we choose to dwell upon them.

The can even become mortal sins since, as we read in CCC 1857 --"For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."--

By definition, homosexuality is a mortal sin. First condition met. Consciously dwelling upon it fulfills the second two criteria: full knowledge and deliberate consent. dwelling u

By contrast, prideful thoughts don't always meet those three criteria. Pride is more often a character trait than it is a conscious act. People -are- prideful as opposed to choosing to be prideful. For the proud, we must consciously choose NOT to be so. Consequently, pride isn't automatically committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent and fails to meet the criteria set down in the Catechism for a mortal sin.

Simply put, a homosexual act or appetite for that act, like any other sin, is more readily a conscious choice than a character trait like pride or its counterpoint humility.

Thus, an inclination towards homosexuality is inherently more sinful than an inclination toward pride. Further,

"That’s basic catechesis."

Perhaps in The Catechism Of Thomasvalle which has never been set down in print, much less indexed by paragraph..

"Even you have inclinations for sin; everyone does."

...implying that I would ever claim otherwise. Quite the opposite. I freely admit to the sin of pride. As I've told others, my own ego is so gigantic, it actually affects the Earth's planetary rotation. NASA has been factoring in its mass when planning space launches for almost a decade now.

Those private "SpaceX" guys didn't and look where it got them.

It increased in several orders of magnitude after I publicly humilated a prominent Quranic scholar so badly even his academic rivals were gloating. You're not helping it here, either.

"In other words,..."
Let's stick with the words in the Catechism, not an interpretation written by you as a substitute. Nowhere in your Catechism quote does it say homosexual incinations are NOT sinful.

"Note that the word "delicacy" and "marginalized" are synonyms for sensitivity and discrimination respectively as mentioned in the catechism.

You're not the first joker around here to try excusing an outright falsehood with this "synonym" cannard aound here..

I repeat: The words "delicacy" and "marginalized" don't appear in paragraph 2358 of the Catechism.

As a result, your claim The Catechism "says that people with homosexual inclinations should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized." is false.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says no such thing. What The Catechism says and what you claim it says are two different things.

@Ultraviolet Again, having an inclination is not a sin. Only acting on the inclination, be it thought, word or action makes such a thing sinful. This applies to all sins. A person might have an inclination for wrath, but the virtue of patience prevents one from falling into the sin of wrath. Likewise, the antidote to lust is chastity. The Pope explains this in the video above.

But of the seven deadly sins, realize that theologians reserve a special place for pride. While lust, envy, anger, greed, gluttony and sloth are all bad, pride is the deadliest of all, and the beginning of sin. Pride blinds the mind. Some Catholics are so full of pride that think themselves even more Catholic than the Pope. As C.S. Lewis put it, “Vices other than pride, come from the Devil working on us through our animal nature. Pride, on the other hand, is purely spiritual and, consequently, far more subtle and deadly.” Lucifer’s sin was pride. Here’s a bishop explaining the terrible sin of pride which may help you uproot it:

youtu.be/7upPi-3pS2I

@Mathathaias Maccabeus I'm flattered but sadly, I don't smoke. If you want to have a cigar, I'm perfectly okay with that. I'd even happily buy you one of your choice at a cigar lounge, so long as we go outside and I'm upwind. :D

"Again, having an inclination is not a sin." @thomasvalle

Again, having an inclination to an act requires a conscious thought of that act, which IS sinful.

"Only acting on the inclination, be it thought, word or action makes such a thing sinful."

Therein lies the problem for homosexuality. One can not have an inclination to the act without thinking OF the act. By contrast, an inclination to pride doesn't require any conscious thought at all. One simply is. :D

The same applies to your example of wrath. Wrath is an emotion, like pride, and a specific instance can trigger it... say success for pride and insult for wrath.

However, both can also be character traits. Some people are naturally wrathful i.e. "having a chip on their shoulder". Some people are naturally prideful for whatever reason, usually owing to some form of evident superiority over their fellows. Forum smarty-pants for example, get butterflies every time they get to show off their intellectual prowess -as one GTV writer so astutely phrased it.

"Likewise, the antidote to lust is chastity. The Pope explains this in the video above."

Lust and homosexuality are not the same thing, even outside the obvious hetero/ homo dynamic, so it's a spurious example.

While I freely acknowledge the warning theologians make, pride is not the beginning of the sin, when the sin is homosexuality.

Quite the opposite. Some homosexuals derive a perverse pleasure in abasing themselves and being physically degraded by their partners in ways that are literally unfit to desribe on a Catholic site, even indirectly.

"Pride blinds the mind."

Readily contradicted by the drubbing you're taking at the hands of the prideful. :D

"Some Catholics are so full of pride that think themselves even more Catholic than the Pope. "

True. Except in some cases they're correct in thinking so, pride notwithstanding. Particularly when the Pope isn't very Catholic at all, regardless of his office.

If @Chris Griffen were here, he would point out, C.S. Lewis was not a Catholic and be correct in doing so. More importantly in this context, C.S. Lewis had a bias, no doubt motivated by his surprisingly tolerant attitude towards homosexuality and pederasty in particular.

.. just because C.S. Lewis said it does not immediately make it true.

@Ultraviolet An inclination to sin does not mean one is willfully thinking about something sinful. An inclination may be their weakness if they are exposed to those temptations, by not avoiding the near occasions of sin. Thus the need to practice virtue and live a sacramental life. An alcoholic may have to struggle all their life against their inclination to drink, it doesn’t mean they are sinning just because they have that inclination. If they refrain from drinking and avoid the occasions that may lead them to fall, they may be living in the state of grace despite their inclinations. As for the sin of pride, Pride is the source of all other sins, and the worst sin. It’s like a cancer. One can go to hell for the sin of Pride, just as one can go to hell for sexual sins; as Dante would have it, a different section, but the same hell; just another route to it.

"An inclination to sin does not mean one is willfully thinking about something sinful."

Without thought there is no inclination to act on them. Try again, hon. :D

"An inclination may be their weakness if they are exposed to those temptations, by not avoiding the near occasions of sin."

The operative phrase being "may be" which does not and should not imply "always is". I'd rather not imagine what homosexuals consider "the near occasions of sin".

"An alcoholic may have to struggle all their life against their inclination to drink, it doesn’t mean they are sinning just because they have that inclination."

An alcoholic isn't sinning even if they do drink because drinking isn't a sin. Drinking to excess is. By contrast, a homosexual is always a sin. Your comparison fails.

"Pride is the source of all other sins, and the worst sin."

Cool story, bro. Contradicted by my earlier examples which you chose to ignore. But since you're being silly and repetitive, at least try to be entertaining...

Show a direct chain of causation where being snooty always resulting in buggering a minor. Knock yourself out. :P

@Ultraviolet The inclination toward sin is called concupiscence. While baptism erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, the inclination toward sin and evil persists, and man must continue to struggle against concupiscence. There are many types of sexual sins, and some are intrinsically disordered, for example, the use of artificial contraception is intrinsically disordered, because it frustrates the very purpose of the gift of sexuality. Homosexual acts are also intrinsically disordered.

Homosexuality refers to men and women who experience a sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. For many, the homosexual tendency is rooted in psychological conditioning stemming from one’s youth. As the catechism explains, homosexuality has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures and its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

“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. Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

Thus, men who have left the “gay lifestyle” who are sincerely seeking the Lord and striving to be chaste, guarding their thoughts may still have a deeply rooted inclination toward that sin, yet despite that concupiscence they can live in God’s Grace and grow in sanctity with God’s sanctifying Grace.

"The inclination toward sin is called concupiscence."

Irrelevant to the points being discussed.

"There are many types of sexual sins, and some are intrinsically disordered, for example,..."

Irrelevant to homosexuality.

"Homosexual acts are also intrinsically disordered."

Correct yet irrelevant to the points being discussed.

"Homosexuality refers to men and women who..."

Long paraphrases from the Catechism doesn't change
:
a.) the criteria required for mortal sin
b.) homosexuality's status as such
c.) inclination towards an act requires conscious thought.
d.) that a.) through c.) creates a condition where homosexual inclinations are by their very nature almost always mortally sinful.
e.) You still haven't shown how an inclination to the sin of pride leads to all sins, in particular homosexuality.

Further, the number of men who've left the "gay lifestyle" andhave somehow managed to do all that you've claimed are few to nonexistent. In simple terms this is a cherry-picking fallacy).

However, since they do exist, at least in theory, and they are "sincerely seeking the Lord and striving to be chaste, guarding their thoughts..." then they can't have inclination towards something they aren't thinking about.

A thought is an conscious action of the mind, as opposed to an autonomic response e.g. hunger. One can not "guard one's thoughts" from thoughts of homosexuality and still think about homosexuality. The distinction being "guarding ones thoughts" entails thinking about not thinking about an act as a conscious distraction from thinking about an act..

However, if a homosexual is thinking about homosexuality by definition they are deliberately doing so by concscious act of wil.

Consequently, they have an inclination and it's mortally sinful. If they are guarding their thoughts and NOT thinking about it, then their so-called inclination no longer exists... at least for as long as they can manage to not think about thinking about homosexuality. ;-)

@Ultraviolet You said:
your claim The Catechism "says that people with homosexual inclinations should be treated with delicacy and not be marginalized." is false…

…You're not the first joker around here to try excusing an outright falsehood with this "synonym" cannard aound here…

…repeat: The words "delicacy" and "marginalized" don't appear in paragraph 2358 of the Catechism…

The Italian translation uses the word delicatezza, which translated in English is “delicacy” or “sensitivity”. It was the Pope who explained that people with homosexual inclinations should not be marginalized. (You can watch the video above where he says it.) He said he was quoting the catechism. He used the word marginalized, which is a synonym for discrimination, which is the word used in the English translation.

You are arguing minutia which I think illustrates that you are more interested in winning an argument than anything else.

You said:

…Consequently, they have an inclination and it's mortally sinful. If they are guarding their thoughts and NOT thinking about it, then their so-called inclination no longer exists... at least for as long as they can manage to not think about thinking about homosexuality. ;-)

The catechism specifically states that Homosexuals are called to chastity. If these people did not have that ingrained inclination, the catechism would not have called them homosexuals, but rather, persons who engage in homosexual acts. You yourself said:

“if a homosexual is thinking about homosexuality”

So make up your mind. Are the homosexuals willing their inclination or do they just have that inclination? The Catechism states that The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.

Homosexuals practicing chastity may sound like an oxymoron to you, but the Catechism states that homosexuals are called to chastity.

While the inclination itself is disordered, the person is not committing a sin by the mere fact of having a disordered inclination. In fact, all inclinations to sin are disordered:

This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418)

The Devil the flesh and the world all tempt people into sin. The temptation itself is not a sin; yielding to the temptation is. It is through overcoming temptation that people are sanctified.

Obviously, homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered sexual sins, as are the sins of sexual self-gratification (masturbation) and the use of artificial contraception, or onanism. These are all grave sins.

As for the Four Sins that are so grave that they are crying for vengeance from heaven, the Catechism states:

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are "sins that cry to heaven": the blood of Abel [murder]; the sin of the Sodomites; the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan; and the injustice to the wage earner.

Cf. Gen 4:10.; Cf. Gen 18:20; 19:13; Cf. Ex 3:7-10.; Cf. Ex 20:20-22.

"The Italian translation uses the word delicatezza, which translated in English is 'delicacy' or 'sensitivity'. "

Translated by whom? You? Certainly not translated by The Vatican and it is their translation that matters not yours. Here's the official English text, in print, courtesy of the USCCB.

Your statement remains false.

"It was the Pope who explained that people with homosexual inclinations should not be marginalized."

Irrelevant to your original claim: "He was paraphrasing the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says... etc."

...and the Catechism of The Catholic Church says no such thing. Since you were supposedly quoting it in English (and not Italian), then you must remain true to the English text, not Italian, and not your translation of Italian.

"He said he was quoting the catechism."

...and you foolishly took him at his word. Serves you right. :D

So regardless of what the Pope says, the Pope is not the Catechism. You are responsible for your words.and you claimed, "He was paraphrasing the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says... etc."

...and I repeat The Catechism says no such thing.

"You are arguing minutia which I think illustrates that you are more interested in winning an argument than anything else."

Now there is one nasty piece of self-serving projection.

Right now you're doing a bait and switch between your own utterly unsupported translation of Italian words and the English version of the Catechism, and why?

...because the Catechism doesn't say in English what you originally claimed it did .

...and then you have the nerve to whine about arguing minutia and being more interested in winning an argument..

"He used the word marginalized, which is a synonym for discrimination, which is the word used in the English translation."

A synonym is a different word with a similar meaning. It is not the word (or words) you claimed were in The Catechism Of The Catholic Church.... "where it says"...(your exact choice of words)

The sooner you concede the point, the less foolish you'll look. Because, no, I'm not going to let you save face here. You're wrong, I've cornered you, and I'll keep you cornered for as long as you insist on trying to defend your mistake. :D

...and yes, this is exactly how arguments are won. ;-)

"The catechism specifically states that Homosexuals are called to chastity. If these people did not have that ingrained inclination, the catechism would not have called them homosexuals, but rather, persons who engage in homosexual acts."

Wrong. First, Homosexuals are defined by their actions, including mental ones. A person who engages in a homosexual act is, by their actions, a homosexual.

Second, not all homosexuals have "that ingrained inclination" (your words) to homosexuality. Some nominally hetero men engage in homosexuality simply as a physical release and/or to establish dominance (in prison for example). Some married otherwise heterosexual men engage in it for purely physical reasons when their wives refuse their ah... conjugal duties.

These two groups are notoriously fond of insisting they're not homosexuals, or not "really" homosexuals, no matter how many times they commit sodomy with other men. --which is an outright joke given what they're doing. A man who steals is a thief, even if he normally doesn't steal. A man murders is a murderer even if he murders only once. A man who has sexual intercourse with other men is a homosexual because not all men in those same circumstances do so.

"So make up your mind. Are the homosexuals willing their inclination or do they just have that inclination? "

Your Fallacy Is: False Dilemma. Pic related. ...beause nominally hetero prisoners and unhappy married men are homosexuals by action without having what you called "that ingrained inclination".

"The Catechism states that The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible."

Notice the Catechism doesn't use the word inclination which is what we're discussing.. Bait n' switch again. Let's see how long it takes before you resort to another "synonym" excuse. In a word (pardon the pun) your cite doesn't use the word we're discussing.

"Homosexuals practicing chastity may sound like an oxymoron to you, but the Catechism states that homosexuals are called to chastity."

...being called to chastity does not show they are practicing chastity. Catholics are called to many virtues but that does not mean they practice what they are called to.

"the person is not committing a sin by the mere fact of having a disordered inclination.

That's a contradiction based on the nature of an inclination.

One can not have an inclination to a sinful act without thinking about that act. Otherwise, no inclination would perforce exist. In this instance those homosexual thoughts fall under the three criteria of mortal sin...

CCC 1857 --"For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."--

A person who chooses to think about a sin does so with full knowledge and consent, else they would think about something else.

" In fact, all inclinations to sin are disordered: This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418)"

...and neither paragraph of the CCC supports your claim, "all inclinations to sin are disordered"

Following your claim with a colon to show support from your cite was a mistake.

Neither paragraph so much as uses the word "disordered" in any context.

Neither paragraph states that concupiscence is "disordered" either.

I don't know where you picked up the bad habit of fabricating the Catechism, but getting nailed on those "delicacy" and "marginalized" terms should have taught you that tactic won't work here.

"The Devil the flesh and the world all tempt people into sin. The temptation itself is not a sin; yielding to the temptation is."

Irrelevant to what the Catechism says and, more importantly, what it doesn't say that you say it says. :D But just for to hammer a few more nails in the coffin, let's run with your side-step. "The temptation itself is not a sin; yielding to the temptation is."

...and you've just supported my point why thinking about a sinful act is, in fact, sinful in itself.

When the devil tempts a homosexual, that temptation is external and not the fault of the homosexual or any other sinner. When the homosexual yields to that temptation and consciously embraces it, then they have sinned and that's what constitutes a homosexual inclination.

"It is through overcoming temptation that people are sanctified."

...and that isn't happening when someone is thinking about sodomy or Sappho. ;-)

"Obviously,..These are all grave sins."

Obviously. Yet, as your cite from the Catechism shows, only homosexuality among these is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Consequently you have no business trying to minimize its seriousness by conflating it with other less greivous sins.

@Ultraviolet You said:
Translated by whom? You? Certainly not translated by The Vatican and it is their translation that matters not yours. Here's the official English text, in print, courtesy of the USCCB.

The translation is from the dictionary. The words are interchangeable. The Italian Catechism uses the word delicatezza, which translated in English is “delicacy” or “sensitivity”. The Spanish Catechism uses the word “delicadeza” which translates to “delicacy” or “sensitivity.” As for the difference between “discriminate”and “marginalize” those are interchangeable too; the English version of the Catechism uses discrimination, the Pope used the word marginalized when he quoted the catechism, the the French original catechism uses the word marginalise.

The Catechism has been translated into many many languages, and the point it is making in #2358 is that people with such inclinations should be treated with respect, delicacy an not be discriminated against.

That you are quibbling with this simply looks like you want to win an argument rather than have a simple discussion. You arguing like this makes me not want to waste my time responding to your comments.

You said:
The sooner you concede the point, the less foolish you'll look. Because, no, I'm not going to let you save face here. You're wrong, I've cornered you, and I'll keep you cornered for as long as you insist on trying to defend your mistake. :D

…and yes, this is exactly how arguments are won. ;-)

I once heard an antiCatholic claiming he Biblically refuted the teachings of the Catholic Church after debating a Catholic apologist; all he really proved was that he wasn’t listening to anything, and was just concerned about not losing an argument.

You said:
Wrong. First, Homosexuals are defined by their actions, including mental ones. A person who engages in a homosexual act is, by their actions, a homosexual.

Second, not all homosexuals have "that ingrained inclination"

This is certainly true. While today’s culture of promiscuity ushers people into certain activities and lifestyles that lead into greater perversions of sexuality, nevertheless, the Catechism is speaking about persons with deeply rooted tendencies that stem from psychological conditioning that extend back into early years of childhood development.

Dismissing someone that have these psychological issues by simply telling them to stop thinking about such thoughts may seem like the simple answer, but for some it has become their identity and lifelong psychological and emotional state of mind. Think of the psychology of someone with an addiction, or a child who has been sexually abused, imagine a sibling with a heroin addict, or an alcoholic; such people often need special help. Some even may want to stop and they can’t. Studies have shown how pornography rewires the brain, especially at a young age.

it’s one thing to have the gift of faith, be Catholic and have all the sanctifying Grace from the sacraments; it’s quite another thing if one is lost in the world and enslaved to sin. Statistics show the extremely high rate of depression/suicide among these groups.

People who do not have the Catholic Faith and access to the sacraments, telling such persons they should simply stop thinking about thoughts is like telling a heroin addict to stop thinking about heroin. The real antidote is a conversion of heart through a conversion to Jesus Christ; not through proselytism but through evangelization.

You said:
"The Catechism states that The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible."

Notice the Catechism doesn't use the word inclination which is what we're discussing.. Bait n' switch again. Let's see how long it takes before you resort to another "synonym" excuse. In a word (pardon the pun) your cite doesn't use the word we're discussing.

In the context of what we are speaking about, what is the difference between “inclination” and “tendency”?

You said:
as your cite from the Catechism shows, only homosexuality among these is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Consequently you have no business trying to minimize its seriousness by conflating it with other less greivous sins.

A mortal sin is a mortal sin; while some sins may be more heinous, they all lead to the same hell, a different level but hell nonetheless. Yes, homosexual acts are gravely sinful. But as mentioned before, there are four sins crying out for vengeance from Heaven, among them are murder; sodomy; the cry of the foreigner, widow and orphan, and the injustice to the wage earner.

"The translation is from the dictionary."

Obviously the concept of citations has no relevancy for you. :D Still, nice concession, if unintentional. It's "from the dictionary" (which one? who knows? who cares?) NOT the Vatican's official translation. I repeat, it is their translation that matters, not yours.

"The words are interchangeable."

No they are not you boldly claiming they are doesn't change that.

"The Italian Catechism uses the word delicatezza, which translated in English is..."

Not according to the English Catechism on the Vatican's site. So your translations, from whatever "dictionary" you conjured them up are irrelevant.

"the Pope used the word marginalized when he quoted the catechism, the French original catechism uses the word marginalise."

Irrelevant to an English language discussion and it won't be the first time Pope Francis told a whopper.

"The Catechism has been translated into many many languages..."

Quite so, and since you're writing in English and describing in English what The Catechism supposedly "says", then the Catechism in English takes precedence.

"...and the point it is making in #2358 is that people with such inclinations should be treated with respect, delicacy an not be discriminated against."

Wrong. You'd think you'd learn by now. The catechism makes a critical distinction you, either out of ignorance or bias, omit. I quote: "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Emphasis, mine. Only unjust discrimination is to be avoided, not all discrimination or any discrimination. Refusing to allow a convicted homosexual pederast to work with young boys is discrimination. It's also entirely just, which is why The Church now runs background checks on those applying for positions that involve working with children.

"That you are quibbling with this simply looks like you want to win an argument rather than have a simple discussion."

What did I tell you about self-serving projection, hon? I'm quibbling because you are entirely willing to do so when it suits you and just as reluctant when you get caught in an outright mistake.

"You arguing like this makes me not want to waste my time responding to your comments."

Umpteen paragraphs later... :P Your time is your own. You don't like being caught. I get that. However, I'm not... inclined... to throw a fish back in the lake once I've hooked it and landed it.

At least I argue out of a commitment to the truth which can't be said for V.R.S.

"I once heard an antiCatholic claiming he Biblically refuted the teachings of the Catholic Church after debating a Catholic apologist;"

False comparison since I am a.) a Catholic b.) a traditionalist c.) defending the teachings of the Catholic Church against your false re-wording of them and, most recently your inaccurate interpretation (i.e. discriminating against homosexuals is entirely permitted by the Catholic Church, only unjust discrimination is not.)

"all he really proved was that he wasn’t listening to anything, and was just concerned about not losing an argument."

Still a false comparsion. I'm paying very close attention to what you're writing. Exceedingly close. I'm simply disagreeing with it and pointing out the errors in it. More importantly, I'm not in the slightest bit concerned about "not losing an argument". Me? Debating the likes of you? :D

Losing for me isn't even a possibility, not against you. That isn't even gloating or pride. It's simply a fact. Your overall position is based on error. It takes an exceedingly clever debator to argue from a position of factual weakness and then still overcome an opponent who recognizes that.

You ain't that good. Not even close.

"This is certainly true."

Concession noted.

"the Catechism is speaking about persons with deeply rooted tendencies that stem from psychological conditioning that extend back into early years of childhood development."

The Catechism makes no reference to where these tendencies "stem from" in CCC 2358 where the word "tendencies" occur referring to homosexuality.

So, no, The Catechism isn't speaking about "persons with deeply rooted tendencies that stem from psychological conditioning that extend back into early years of childhood development." because it makes no mention of where their tendencies stem from.

You're putting explanations into the Catechism that aren't there... again. You just don't learn, do you? :P

"Dismissing someone that have these psychological issues by simply telling them to stop thinking about such thoughts may seem like the simple answer"

I'm doing nothing of the sort, so there's no reason to introduce this as a rejoinder. Strawman Argument on your part.

I wasn'tt dismissing their sins, or suggesting means for homosexuals to avoid sinning. I was explainging why a homosexual inclination is sinful by virtue it stems from conscious thought. The sin exists because they aren't thinking about something else. If they were thinking about something else, then there would be no inclination.

"but for some it has become their identity and lifelong psychological and emotional state of mind."

The same is true for some theives and murderers. Theft is still a sin, so is murder. The fact they've built their identities around sin doesn't change the fact it IS sin.

"Think of the psychology of someone with an addiction..."

Yes, they're notoriously duplicitous, manipulative, and almost always refuse to take genuine responsibility for their actions -save as a means of telling others what they want to hear. Typical of many sinners. Good example, providing you were arguing from my position and not yours. :D

"or a child who has been sexually abused"

Not all sexually abused children grow up to be sexual abusers or sexual deviants. Failed analogy.

"imagine a sibling with a heroin addict, or an alcoholic; such people often need special help. Some even may want to stop and they can’t. Studies have shown how pornography rewires the brain, especially at a young age."

So does alcohol and smoking. All these examples of yours are addictions that were entered into by choice. The addicts chose the sins they indulged in and indulged in those sins repeatedly until such changes occurred.

"it’s one thing to have the gift of faith, be Catholic and have all the sanctifying Grace from the sacraments; it’s quite another thing if one is lost in the world and enslaved to sin."

...implying the two are mutually exclusive. ;-) ...readily contradicted by all the paedo clergy and homosexual higher-ups in the Vatican.

"Statistics show the extremely high rate of depression/suicide among these groups."

Poor them. Sin leads to greater sins, including the sin of suicide. Such is the nature of sin. None of which contradicts the Catechism.

"telling such persons they should simply stop thinking about thoughts is like telling a heroin addict to stop thinking about heroin."

Irrelevant since I have not done so. In short, you're compounding your fallacy of a strawman argument with the fallacy of an argument from repetition.

"In the context of what we are speaking about, what is the difference between 'inclination' and 'tendency' ?"

There is one. The former refers towards the mental predisposition, the latter refers primarily towards the physical. In this context, namely of the two relevant Catechism paragraphs, which is important and I'm glad you raised that.

"A mortal sin is a mortal sin; while some sins may be more heinous, they all lead to the same hell, a different level but hell nonetheless."

...thus you concede homosexuality is more grievous as a sin, and almost certainly in posthumous punishment. So you shouldn't conflate it with less grevious mortal sins.

Doing 10 years for tax evasion in a minimum-security prison for non-violent offenders is very different from robbing a Post Office and getting 10 years in a max-facility packed with rival drug-gangs brutalizing everyone who isn't part of their "crew" when they aren't murdering each other.

Yes, they're both Federal offences, yes, they're both felonies, yes, 10 year sentences are common for both. But as the cons say, "it's a different kind of 'time' even though it's the same time." Hell has its parallels, and they are infinitely worse than anything Dante could have imagined.

"But as mentioned before, there are four sins crying out for vengeance from Heaven, among them are murder; sodomy; the cry of the foreigner, widow and orphan, and the injustice to the wage earner."

None of the other three were included in your otherwise inaccurate comparison, which renders them irrelevant.

@Ultraviolet You said:
since you're writing in English and describing in English what The Catechism supposedly "says", then the Catechism in English takes precedence.

The translations mean the same thing. I don’t see what difference it makes. Whether one uses the word delicacy, as used in the Spanish and Italian Catechism, or sensitivity as used in the English translation. “sensitivity” it means the same thing. I don’t see how it matters to the discussion.

Only unjust discrimination is to be avoided, not all discrimination or any discrimination. Refusing to allow a convicted homosexual pederast to work with young boys is discrimination. It's also entirely just

Obviously.

At least I argue out of a commitment to the truth which can't be said for V.R.S.

I praise you for defending the truth with such zeal. The problem is when you resort to straw man arguments, especially the ones used to persecute the Holy Father. When you besmirch the Pope with straw man attacks by injecting false intentions into his actions and statements you pollute (contaminate, poison) the minds of others.

You said:
I am a.) a Catholic b.) a traditionalist c.) defending the teachings of the Catholic Church against your false re-wording of them and, most recently your inaccurate interpretation (i.e. discriminating against homosexuals is entirely permitted by the Catholic Church, only unjust discrimination is not.)

Straw man argument. I too am a Catholic who loves the traditions of the Church and defends the Catholic Faith. Our only disagreement us on your straw man arguments against the Pope. See screenshot and read what I posted:

You said:

I'm paying very close attention to what you're writing. Exceedingly close.

What you are doing is you’re dissecting my words in order to find a possible interpretation that you can attack. The same thing is done against the Pope..

You said:

…Losing for me isn't even a possibility, not against you. That isn't even gloating or pride. It's simply a fact. Your overall position is based on error.

Losing is an impossibility to you because you are making straw man arguments. You win every time, in your mind.

You said:

The Catechism isn't speaking about "persons with deeply rooted tendencies that stem from psychological conditioning that extend back into early years of childhood development." because it makes no mention of where their tendencies stem from.
You're putting explanations into the Catechism that aren't there... again. You just don't learn, do you? :P

The Catechism states:
#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.

The catechism goes on to say that the psychological genesis of deep-seated homosexual tendencies remains largely unexplained. And it is the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) that lists multiple studies that counter today’s false media narrative that homosexuality is genetically determined. While the CMA concludes that not every person who engages in homosexual acts are suffering from a psychological condition, they do point to a certain group of people who exhibit deep-seated homosexual tendencies that stem back into early childhood development due to psychological and emotional trauma. These are the people the Catechism is referring to. You can read all about it in the 2001 publication Homosexuality and Hope: The Statement of the Catholic Medical Association
Link: marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2464&context=lnq

You said:
Further, the number of men who've left the "gay lifestyle" andhave somehow managed to do all that you've claimed are few to nonexistent.

Michael Voris from Church Militant made a very public confession of his past life; so have other public figures in the Catholic blogosphere, such as Joseph Sciambra. The CMA classifies deep-seeded same-sex attractions as psychological conditions.

You said:
I was explainging why a homosexual inclination is sinful by virtue it stems from conscious thought. The sin exists because they aren't thinking about something else. If they were thinking about something else, then there would be no inclination.

It really sounds like you are dabbling into a subject you don’t know much about and injecting your personal opinions on the psychology of those who have the tendencies.
If you read the report by the CMA above you will realize that your statement is naive. Please take the time to read the report. Also, here is what Catholic Answers explains:

“Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner.”

You said:

The same is true for some theives and murderers. Theft is still a sin, so is murder. The fact they've built their identities around sin doesn't change the fact it IS sin.

Again, the subject is not homosexual acts, but rather, homosexual inclinations.

About addicts you said:
Yes, they're notoriously duplicitous, manipulative, and almost always refuse to take genuine responsibility for their actions -save as a means of telling others what they want to hear. Typical of many sinners. . . . All these examples of yours are addictions that were entered into by choice. The addicts chose the sins they indulged in and indulged in those sins repeatedly until such changes occurred.

Yes, all people who succumb to a temptation are making a choice. It doesn’t sound like you have much pity for sinners. Jesus referred to sin as slavery.

As a Catholic you should remember that were it not for the grace of God, you might very well be a slave to such sins. I advise you to see people who are lost in sin and headed to perdition as
“poor sinners” as described by the BVM at Fatima. Remember, in the Old Testament the woman caught in adultery, by law was supposed to be stoned to death. Christ set a new precedent. Let he who has no sin cast the first stone, instead of condemning, exhort and intercede on their behalf with your prayers and personal sacrifices.

You said:
you concede homosexuality is more grievous as a sin, and almost certainly in posthumous punishment. So you shouldn't conflate it with less grevious mortal sins.

Yes, homosexual acts are indeed gravely sinful; sexuality in intimately linked to the procreation of new human beings, thus such acts reduce sexual intercourse to self-gratification by dishonoring the body, intended to be a Temple of the Holy Spirit.

But there seems to be a fixation on condemning homosexuals homosexuals, instead of trying to help then find freedom from their slavery to sin. Interestingly there seems to be hardly any outrage coming from those same quarters about the other sins crying for vengeance from Heaven, such as the cry of the foreigner, widow and orphan, and the injustice to the wage earner..

"The translations mean the same thing."

No translation is ever fully identical to the original text. They intend to mean the same thing, but what they mean, intend to mean and what they actually say are all very different from each other. We were discussing what you claimed the Catechism says. It doesn't say, in English what you claimed it says in English. Just admit it.

"I don’t see what difference it makes."

I believe you do. Even if you don't, your fallacy is: Argument From Incredulity. Just because you don't understand what difference it makes doesn't mean it doesn't make a difference.

"Whether one uses the word delicacy, as used in the Spanish and Italian Catechism, or sensitivity as used in the English translation. “sensitivity” it means the same thing. I don’t see how it matters to the discussion."

It matters because, I repeat, The Catechism does not say what you claimed it says. You keep flip-flopping between Spanish/ Italian (all unsupported translations provided by you, I notice) and meaning to cover one basic fact.

This is an English language discussion and The Catechism Of The Catholic Church says no such thing in the official English translation, contrary to your claim and on-going defense of that claim.

"Obviously."

If it's obvious, then your generalist claim otherwise is false.

"I praise you for defending the truth with such zeal. The problem is when you resort to straw man arguments, especially the ones used to persecute the Holy Father."

Don't use debating terms you don't understand. You have shown no "strawman" argument on my part. I'm not putting words in Francis' mouth or under his pen. Zero evidence from you showing support for your claim.

"When you besmirch the Pope with straw man attacks by injecting false intentions into his actions and statements you pollute (contaminate, poison) the minds of others."

I'm not speculating on Pope Francis' intentions behind the errors he presents. I'm GTV's Self-Appointed Official Seer, not GTV's Self-Appointed Mind-Reader. I leave that office to all the idiots who defend Francis with their claims of what Francis really meant.

You said:
I am a.) a Catholic b.) a traditionalist c.) defending the teachings of the Catholic Church against your false re-wording of them and, most recently your inaccurate interpretation (i.e. discriminating against homosexuals is entirely permitted by the Catholic Church, only unjust discrimination is not.)

"Straw man argument."

Wrong. As I said, you don't know what a Strawman Argument is. You claimed: "I once heard an antiCatholic claiming ..."

My quote shows your comparison is false, it does not change the false comparison you made.

"I too am a Catholic who loves the traditions of the Church and defends the Catholic Faith."

:P :P :P

"Our only disagreement us on your straw man arguments against the Pope. See screenshot and read what I posted..."

Your screen-shot shows what Canon Law says. I was contesting what you said, quoted here verbatim:

Your words: "...and the point it is making in #2358 is that people with such inclinations should be treated with respect, delicacy an not be discriminated against."

...and that is wrong, as you've already conceded with your "Obviously" up above.

Catholics may indeed discriminate against homosexuals, so long as it is not unjust discrimination. You made no such qualification in your statement, "People with such inclinations should be treated with respect, delicacy an not be discriminated against."

The can be discriminated against, in some circumstances they should be discriminated against. You're wrong and in your own tortured way you've admitted it. "Obviously", in reference to my comment, "Only unjust discrimination is to be avoided, not all discrimination or any discrimination."

"What you are doing is you’re dissecting my words in order to find a possible interpretation that you can attack. The same thing is done against the Pope."

I'm quoting you and contradicting what you've written. We're both writing English. Your meaning is clear and I'm addressing it. For example, you made a generalist claim e.g. "the point it is making in #2358 is that people with such inclinations should be treated with respect, delicacy an not be discriminated against."

That isn't the point the Catechism is making at all. By now, "obviously" I think we both acknoweldge that. Your words and your meaning are incorrect. If we want to get exceptionally technical, your interpretation of the Catechism's words are incorrect. I'm dissecting your position and I'm dissecting your reasoning. There's the difference.

Technically, I'm not even dissecting your words. After all, you keep defending your position on what the Catechism "says" by quoting foreign translations, Pope Francis and conflating that muddled mess with the English translation of the Catechism..

Unless you're some kind of autistic with a private set of meanings for English, your interpretation is clear. It's also wrong.

"Losing is an impossibility to you because you are making straw man arguments."

Your fallacy is Argument From Repeition. Repeating a bogus claim of "Strawman Argument" doesn't make it true. Saying it and showing it aren't the same and you haven't done the latter, Repeating it after you've said it doesn't change that.

Me pointing this out means, yes, I am winning whether you choose to concede the point graciously or not. After all, you're still stubbornly defending your use of words that aren't in the Catechism in English by conflating them with your own still-unsupported, un-cited translations from foreign language editions and whatever nonsense you're translating from El Francesco..

"The catechism goes on to say that the psychological genesis of deep-seated homosexual tendencies remains largely unexplained."

...and in doing so, the Catechism just contradicted your folllowing claim

Your words: "the Catechism is speaking about persons with deeply rooted tendencies that stem from psychological conditioning that extend back into early years of childhood development."

The Catechism claims the psychological genesis of deep-seated homosexual tendencies remains largely unexplained. As a result Catechism is NOT "speaking about persons with deeply rooted tendencies that stem from psychological conditioning that extend back into early years of childhood development"

Again, you have claimed "the Catechism is speaking about" and then introduced an origin of these tendencies not present in the Catechism . So the Catechism isn't speaking about "such persons" in the paragraph where you claimed it did.

"...And it is the Catholic Medical Association (CMA) that lists...."

Here we go... Bait and switch. The CMA is not the Catechism. Irrelevant evidence, technically, this is a Red Herring Fallacy, btw. ;-)

"Michael Voris from Church Militant made a very public confession of his past life; so have other public figures in the Catholic blogosphere, such as Joseph Sciambra."

Proving my original statement true: I repeat: "Further, the number of men who've left the "gay lifestyle" and have somehow managed to do all that you've claimed are few to nonexistent."

Emphasis here. You've offered two names. Two. Compared to how many self-identified homosexuals in the world today?

Just to go easy on you, I'll confine my focus to the US alone, ignoring the rest of the planet.

At present, 5.6% of the US population alone identify themselves as some species of homosexual.

gallup.com/…708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx

Current US Population is at 329.5 million

5.6% of that is 18,452,000 (rounded for decimals).

You've named two individuals. I'll graciously grant you another 18 that you haven't named (and probably can't name) to cover your "other public figures in the Catholic blogosphere"

20 out of 18,452,000 is 0.00010839%

That's zero percent followed by three more zeros into the decimals. As I said, "few to non existent" Citing two names and a vague "other public figures in the Catholic blogosphere" is a Fallacy of Cherry-Picking. Nearly all gay men haven't left their lifestyle or done all the rest you claimed.

"It really sounds like you are dabbling into a subject you don’t know much about..."

Correction: it sounds that way to you. I'm citing The Church's official teachings and contradicting your interpretation of them.

As for "a subject you don't know much about..." The subject here is the origin of a sinful inclination. and what the Catechism states. Since I'm the one repeatedly correcting your bogus interpretations and not the reverse, factor that into which of us knows more about this subject.

"...and injecting your personal opinions on the psychology of those who have the tendencies."

Correction: I never even used the word "tendencies" in the quote you're replying to.

My words: "I was explainging why a homosexual inclination is sinful by virtue it stems from conscious thought. The sin exists because they aren't thinking about something else. If they were thinking about something else, then there would be no inclination."

Again, you don't know the difference between a tendency and inclination. Worse, you even asked me to explain the differenct to you and I did. So there really isn't any excuse at this point. For someone who's been whining about "strawman arguments" you're obivously not above making them.

Truth is, you're the one "injecting your own personal opinions on the psychology of those who have the tendencies" and worse you're injecting them into The Catechism.

I don't care about the psychology of homosexuals and I'm not discussing their psychology beyond the Catechism's official view. I'm discussing what is sinful and why it is so.

Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder what motivates your constant excuse-making for homosexuals and their inclinations and tendencies. I do have my suspicions. ;-)

"If you read the report by the CMA above you will realize that your statement is naive. Please take the time to read the report."

The CMA is not The Catholic Church or the Catechism Of The Catholic Church. My views are directly supported by The Catechism of The Catholic Church. Neither they, nor The Catechism are "naive". You tossing out some empty-headed unsupported opinion with a rhetorical wave of the hand to some report just isn't good enough here.

LIkewise, scrabbling around outside The Church's official teachings to support your claims about The Church officially teaches is doomed to failure. :D

"Also, here is what Catholic Answers explains:"

See my last point. ;-)

"Again, the subject is not homosexual acts, but rather, homosexual inclinations."

Wrong. I was replying to your claim: " but for some it has become their identity and lifelong psychological and emotional state of mind."

The subject here isn't homosexual inclinations, it's that homosexuals have allowed their sin to (your words) "become their identity and lifelong psychological and emotional state of mind"

That isn't an inclination, that's self-defintion and the creation of an identity.

"It doesn’t sound like you have much pity for sinners. Jesus referred to sin as slavery."

Fallacy of Composition. I don't have much sympathy for addicts. However, not all sinners are addicts.

"As a Catholic you should remember that were it not for the grace of God, you might very well be a slave to such sins."

Contradicted by the doctrine of free-will. ;-) Pagans and even atheists, those who've rejected all of God's graces can and do refuse the slavery of such sins. Granted, they may have enslaved themselves to other sins, but that's a different matter. They aren't necessarily homosexuals and they aren't addicts.

" I advise you to see people who are lost in sin and headed to perdition as "poor sinners" as described by the BVM at Fatima."

Poor sinners they may be, but by choice. Their choices are on them, as are mine. The difference is my sins don't lead me to pederasty, destroying society to justify my sins, or destroying the lives of people around me to support a drug habit.

"Remember, in the Old Testament the woman caught in adultery, by law was supposed to be stoned to death. Christ set a new precedent."

Irrelevant analogy. I'm not suggesting much less implementing capital punishment for homosexuals, under either religious or temporal legal grounds. Christ was criticizing those who, in that instance, were doing so.

"exhort and intercede on their behalf with your prayers and personal sacrifices."

:D :D :D That's.... seriously, that's... :D :D :D You're new around here, that's for certain. No matter. you'll learn.

"But there seems to be a fixation on condemning homosexuals, instead of trying to help then find freedom from their slavery to sin."

Not so. My "fixation" is in preventing you from changing what the Catechism says into what you claim it does and to counter your relentless enabling excuses for them.

I'm not condemning homosexuality, I'm not fixated on it, either. The Church condemns homosexuality and, from the manner in which it defines mortal sin, by extension does the same for their inclinations. It isn't a fixation for The Church anymore than it is for me.

"Interestingly there seems to be hardly any outrage coming from those same quarters about the other sins crying for vengeance from Heaven, such as the cry of the foreigner, widow and orphan, and the injustice to the wage earner."

In this instance the cause of that should be fairly obvious: Go look at the subject of this post. You're not making excuses for those who cause the "cry of the foreigner, widow and orphan, and the injustice to the wage earner". So you shouldn't be surprised when there isn't any outrage about sins not relevant to the sin being discussed.

When you start making excuses for biased immigration laws, welfare scammers, lousy employers and excessive taxation, then I'll climb all over you for that instead. Then you'll be griping about a supposed "fixation" on those sins as well. :D

@Ultraviolet The problem is that you’re getting caught up in technicalities. Quibbling over the word Delicatezza illustrates that you value winning more highly than arriving at the truth.
-
“yes, I am winning whether you choose to concede the point graciously or not. After all, you're still stubbornly defending your use of words that aren't in the Catechism in English”

“Losing for me isn't even a possibility, not against you.”

“At least I argue out of a commitment to the truth which can't be said for V.R.S.”
-
Don’t be that person. The Internet is already full of eristic personalities who spend countless hours of their life arguing and attacking people with their keyboards in the name of defending the truth, when they are really just defending their vanity, made clear by the snarky way they talk, mock and even stalk people. In their minds they think they are doing good.

Be careful. Even the pope has lamented the culture of insults that permeates social media. I can understand that coming from those in the world, but there simply is no room for that for a Christian..

-
“I don't have much sympathy for addicts.”
-
Why not?

-
“Frankly, I'm beginning to wonder what motivates your constant excuse-making for homosexuals and their inclinations and tendencies. I do have my suspicions. ;-)”
-
Oh? And what are your suspicions? Speak clearly, don’t make insinuations.

As for homosexuals, I see how they are often spoken of on GTV and how many react to the pope reaching out to them. Yes, the acts are intrinsically disordered, yes, such acts are an abomination, yes, it is gravely sinful. Yes, it leads to eternal perdition. But using scorn is not the way to evangelize. In other words, mocking, judging and condemning homosexuals is not hating the sin and loving the sinner. Yes, condemn homosexuality, not the homosexual.

Here is what the Catechism calls for:

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

@The New Knights Templar Again, the problem is that many Catholics put their trust in Internet and sensational headlines and react to false narratives coming from anyone and everyone with an internet connection instead of trusting the Church.

As for your concerns, right after the German bishops defied Pope Francis warning to not ordain women, Pope Revised Canon Law which now specifically states that both the person who attempts to confer ordination on a woman and the woman herself incur automatic excommunication. You can read about it here: npr.org/…laws-on-sex-abuse-fraud-and-the-ordination-of-wome

As for blessing Gay unions, the Pope clearly explained that the Church cannot and will not bless gay unions because God does not bless sin. You can read about it here:

apnews.com/…-cannot-bless-sin-077944750c975313ad253328e4cf7443

As for the Pachamama saga, one need only watch the event in context. The claim that the natives were bowing down and worshipping the “Pachamama idol” is based on an edited video snippet showing them bowing down to the little wooden statue. In reality, they were giving thanks to God as our Father and thanking Him for Creation when they bowed down. What most people saw was an edited clip. Furthermore, the event was in the context of the feast of Saint Francis of Assisi where in the ceremony they sang St. Francis’ Canticle of the Sun, where St. Francis gives thanks to God for “Brother Sun” “Sister Moon” and “Mother Earth”. those are the words of St. Francis of Assisi. The problem is that people were too lazy to watch the entire event, and put their faith in the Internet and all the talking heads who see everything through their smoke-colored political glasses.

Since they obviously did not understand the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian that was spoken at the ceremony, they based they]ir conclusions on what they saw edited. Once again, the gossip and the false news narrative drowned out the truth, and people were reacting and taking sides on the false narratives not the real intentions. Here is that ceremony on context if you want to bother to watch the whole thing. The wooden statue was part of a display, along with a parrot, canoes and fishing nets and other items representing Amazonian regions. In the end you will see these same people planting trees giving thanks to God Our Father our Creator, and not “installing demons” or worshipping pagan idols as you may have heard on the Internet. Here is the video:

youtu.be/wPK7RpoUzPk

"As for the Pachamama saga, one need only watch the event in context." Please explain the "context" that makes a pagan Latin American goddess -not- a pagan Latin American goddess.

"The wooden statue was part of a display..." The term for a wooden statue representing a pagan diety is "idol", btw. which contradicts your claim they weren't "worshipping pagan idols". The items surrounding a pagan idol do not change what it is. Ancient art of the Crucifixion included a skull at the base of the cross. Skulls also form the platform on which H.R. Giger's satanic "baphomet" sits.

@Ultraviolet If you watch the video of the entire event which took place in the Vatican Gardens, Jesus Christ is at the center of the event. The problem is that you don’t speak Spanish, Italian or Portuguese. In the part where they are planting the trees mid-way through the video, they are singing the Canticle of St. Francis giving thanks to God the Father for the goodness of Creation. The context is the Church’s teaching on Inculturation.

Inculturation was addressed by Pope Pius XII in his encyclicals Evangelii praecones and Fidei donum, where Pius XII demanded recognition of local cultures as fully equal to European culture. He explained:

“The herald of the Gospel and messenger of Christ is an apostle. His office does not demand that he transplant European civilization and culture, and no other, to foreign soil, there to take root and propagate itself. His task in dealing with these peoples, who sometimes boast of a very old and highly developed culture of their own, is to teach and form them so that they are ready to accept willingly and in a practical manner the principles of Christian life and morality; principles, I might add, that fit into any culture, provided it be good and sound, and which give that culture greater force in safeguarding human dignity and in gaining human happiness."

Within weeks of his coronation, Pope Pius XII radically reverted the 250-year-old Vatican policy which had condemned the veneration of dead family members in China. At the request of Pius XII, the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith stated that Chinese customs were no longer considered superstitious but rather an honourable way of esteeming one's relatives, and therefore permitted to Catholics.

The problem is that most western “Latin” Catholics today, especially “First World” Catholics on the Internet, do not understand the Church’s history of evangelization of remote locations on earth through inculturation, and find themselves mouthing off against the voice of God who speaks through His Church.

One has to realize that “Catholic” means “Universal” in the sense that Catholicism takes what is good from every “ism”, religion, and culture of the world, and Christianizes it. An early example of this is the Church’s adaptation of Roman and Greek customs. The Apostles were Jewish.

Incidentally, realize that that wooden statue at the center of the Pachamama saga was a recent statue made by a local artist representing an unborn child in the womb of his mother. It represented the culture of the region which values fertility and the goodness of nature as God’s Creation. The big scandal of this story is the slanderous accusations of idolatry against these people, and the persecution of the Holy Father, by Catholics.. The devil is indeed tricky.

"The problem is that you don’t speak Spanish, Italian or Portuguese."

Está asumiendo demasiadas cosas, muchacho. ;-)

"Pius XII demanded recognition of local cultures as fully equal to European culture."

Pius XII did not demand recognition of pagan religions as fully equal to The Church. Religion is not inherent to culture. Fallacy of Composition on your part. ;-)

Likewise, superstition does not always presuppose paganism. See my last point.

"The problem is that most western "Latin" Catholics today, especially "First World" Catholics on the Internet, do not understand the Church’s history of evangelization of remote locations on earth ..."

I said it before in Spanish, I'll say it again in English. You assume too mach, buddy. You haven't polled Latin Catholics online, so don't presume to judge their knowledge base...

After all, your own knowledge of the Catechism is anything but solid. ;-)

"and find themselves mouthing off against the voice of God who speaks through His Church."

No examples presented. Btw... You are correct in stating God speaks through His Church. By contrast, He does not speak through false pagan religions.

"One has to realize that "Catholic" means "Universal" in the sense that Catholicism takes what is good from every "ism", religion, and culture of the world.

The Church does not take "what is good" from false religions because there is noting good in them which The Church does not already possess. On that subject, since you argue The Church supposedly does so, please list "what is good" in satanism. It's a religion and an "ism". It's even a culture, horribly enough.

"An early example of this is the Church’s adaptation of Roman and Greek customs. "

Culture is not religion. You're making the same mistake again.

"The Apostles were Jewish."

Ethnically, yes. However, neither they nor the Jews were pagans, either.

"Incidentally, realize that that wooden statue at the center of the Pachamama saga was a recent statue made by a local artist representing an unborn child in the womb of his mother."

I would thank you to realize also a statue's material composition, recent manufacture, and particular iconography does not change the fact it is a pagan idol.

Exodus 20:3-5

King James Version

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

My interpretation is that no god takes higher priority than God.
Some interpret this as there can be none but God.

@Ultraviolet Since you speak Spanish, in the video you can hear the lady referring to the statue as "Nuestra Señora de la Amazonia” (Our Lady of the Amazonia) as she presents the wooden statue to Pope Francis. You’ll also see these same indigenous people crossing themselves. The key word here is culture. Again, the scandal here is the slander of the Pope and of these people. But trying to convince you seems to be the equivalent to trying to convince a fundamentalist anti-Catholic that Catholics kneeling and praying in front of a statue of Mary is not idol worship; what typically follows is a barrage of arguments trying to convince Catholics that they are worshipping Mary. Skip it. As for world religions, I advise you to watch Fulton Sheen explaining the proper attitude a Catholic should have toward other religions. You can watch it here: Archbishop Sheen on World Religions

@thomasvalle
"Incidentally, realize that that wooden statue at the center of the Pachamama saga was a recent statue made by a local artist representing an unborn child in the womb of his mother. It represented the culture of the region which values fertility and the goodness of nature as God’s Creation. "
----
The statute called by papa Bergoglio in his own words: Pachamama (vaticannews.va/…rancis-comments-on-statues-stolen-from-church.html) - the name of the pagan idol.

"The key word here is culture"
---
The key word here is the abomination of desolation.

@V.R.S. For Christianized indigenous people of Amazonia the “Pachamama” is a cultural symbol of Mother Earth. At the gathering in the Vatican Gardens, they were thanking God the Creator of earth. Thus the choir sang St. Francis of Assisi’s Canticle of the Creatures while the indigenous folks were planting their trees. the Franciscan priest opened the event by thanking God for creation through Jesus Christ Our Lord. You can watch the event here: youtu.be/wPK7RpoUzPk

@thomasvalle
"For Christianized indigenous people of Amazonia the “Pachamama” is a cultural symbol of Mother Earth"
---
Using pagan idols as symbols proves that they are not "Christianized". I read historical relations of missionaries in South America e.g. Fr. Ramos Gavilan or Fr. Jose de Arriaga SJ (author of Extirpacion de idolatrias del Peru) or Fr. Bernabe Cobo SJ and I know what Pachamama is: a demonic goddess connected in particular with shrines - so-called apachetas and fertility/lust.
Now, when the Catholic Church christianized any pagan people She did not take their demonic false gods/idols like Thor, Perun, Gaia, Cybele, Isis, Quetzalcoatl, etc. as symbols of anything.
Therefore, the Pachamama scandal in Vatican is abominable and outrageous.

@V.R.S. The statue shows a woman with child. Unlike western culture today, in the Amazonian culture they celebrate and give thanks for fertility, life and birth. Are you saying that statues of women having a child is a diabolical symbol? I already explained the context . The video even shows a Franciscan with them giving thanks to God the Creator, and opening the event in the name of Jesus Christ. They were not worshipping a statue. Furthermore, the pope himself repeatedly said there was no idolatry going on:

The problem is that you and others are injecting false intentions to their actions, and then attacking those false intentions as if they were their intentions. That is what is known as a straw man argument. Instead of seeking the truth the goal is to blindly attack to win an argument. It reminds me of the time I heard someone trying to convince an anti-Catholic that scapulars and miraculous medals were not amulets. No matter how hard the Catholic fellow tried to explain, the antiCatholic made up his mind that he was right and that Catholics were damned to hell for wearing amulets and worshipping statues of Mary. This is what you call a blind fanatic. No explanation ever suffices.

"Since you speak Spanish..."

To your credit, at least you recovered quickly from that whopper gaffe... "The problem is that you don’t speak Spanish, Italian or Portuguese." :D

"in the video you can hear the lady referring to the statue as "Nuestra Señora de la Amazonia" (Our Lady of the Amazonia)...

Referring to Satan as God does not make him so. Your example fails on logical grounds.

"You’ll also see these same indigenous people crossing themselves. The key word here is culture."

The key word here is idolatry. Crossing yourself before a pagan idol is a pious act to ward off its evil influence and the many infernal spirits who delight in congregating around such abominations. Thus, crossing one's self before an idol or any other obscenity does not does not imply veneration for it.

"Again, the scandal here is the slander of the Pope and of these people."

None shown here by you. In print, it would be libel, not slander. But don't let another mistake stop you now. ;-)

"But trying to convince you seems to be the equivalent to trying to convince a fundamentalist anti-Catholic that..."

Falsehoods and faulty logic are entirely ineffective at convincing me of anything.

In this instance, you are attempting to draw a false parallel of "idol worship" between kneeling before a representation of The Blessed Mother and kneeling before a pagan idol.

That won't convince me either. The Blessed Mother isn't a pagan goddess. Likewise, a "wooden statue" possessing the incography of a pagan goddess does not represent The Blessed Mother.

"I advise you to watch Fulton Sheen explaining the proper attitude a Catholic should have toward other religions. You can watch it here:"

This is text-based debate, amigo. If you're not quoting him verbatim, YouTube videos don't count. pic related.

While I generally resist doing other people's debating for them, this one is just too tempting... :D "As for the pagan worship at the Vatican, the pope said there was no idolatrous intention." Pic related .

Also, your claim is contradicts itself since you've just conceded the ceremony was "pagan worship at the Vatican" (your words). If it's pagan worship and performed before an effigy of some sort, what you'd charitably call a "wooden statue" then it is, by definitation, idolatry. Feel free to explain how a pope deliberately in idolatry doesn't have an idolatrous intention. :D

@Ultraviolet In print, it would be libel, not slander.
It’s all the same; call it calumny. The fact that it spreads like wildfire on the Internet and into the minds of countless of people who spread it makes it a greater gravity. In the end it will haunt those who spread it in the first place.

As for idol worship vs Mary statues, it is not a false comparison, being that we are comparing intention. AntiCatholic Christians vehemently insist that Catholics kneeling and praying before a statue of Mary is idol worship. They would be right only if Catholics were indeed worshipping a statue of Mary. Worshipping Mary would be a sin of idolatry. The issue is whether the natives were worshipping the wooden statue, or not. It all comes down to intention. All the evidence points to it being a cultural display. In Mexico, the original Aztecs danced religious rituals with idolatrous intentions. The Christianized natives wearing the Aztec garb, while retaining their cultural heritage, do not dance with idolatrous intent.
Picture.

@thomasvalle
"The problem is that you and others are injecting false intentions to their actions, and then attacking those false intentions as if they were their intentions."
---
No. The problem is that:
- you judge intentions and try to attribute them to the actions,
- you apply your own grave error to the other people.
I am not interested in intentions because I am neither a confessor nor the Judge of the White-robed Man of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, I am interested in objective reality. And that reality is:
1. Pachamama is a goddess (idol) of pagan tribes of South America
(that Catholic bishops, priests and missionaries fought with in the name of Our Lord)

2. Pachamama figures (that's how Vatican and JMB called them) were introduced to the churches in Rome
(more detailed chronology of the scandal you can find in many places e.g. - rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2019/10/de-mattei-comment-chronology-of-pagan.html )

Conclusion: it is [at least] an objective blasphemy and the offence against the 1st Commandment. And faithful Catholics should denounce it as such to avoid taking part in it (by a tacit approval).

When ancient Christians lapsed and threw a pinch of incense to idols it was deemed universally an apostasy regardless of their "intentions".
As to the intentions - their received different degrees of penance for their crime (cf. e.g. St. Cyprian's treatise on lapsi).

I am no blind fanatic but a faithful Catholic. However, certain Vladimir Ilyich Ulianov and his comrades coined the term for people like you: paputchik i.e. he who travels the same path - of the Revolution. You try to mislead people in the above matter but you won't succeed. The Truth will prevail. EOT.

@thomasvalle
The problem these days is the following: some Catholics have a synchronic vision of the Church - they are able to see / can trust only the present Vatican. Vatican (as the entity) is less than 100 years old, the "new Advent" aka "Conciliar spring" is less than 60 y.o. The Church and the Petrine Office is almost 2000 years old and Their Founder is eternal. And the Catholic Faith has nothing to do whatsoever with scandals and excesses of individual poor prelates including but not limited to Popes of the present age.

@V.R.S. And in those 2,000 years is a history of people splintering the Church because they thought themselves wiser than the Church councils of their age, arguing themselves more Catholic than the pope and ushering countless souls into isms and schisms of all sorts. Today with the internet their voices impact people around the globe. We have people on this website calling the past 5 popes antipopes and dismissing entire councils of the Church based on what they read on the Internet. And there is an endless army of anti-Catholic “Biblical Scholars” who argue just as much against the Catholic Church itself, with their “evidence” that only serves to usher the naive against not only the Pope, but against Christ who speaks through the authority of His Church throughout the ages.

"all the accusations are that it was pagan worship at the Vatican; I was referring to that accusation." @thomasvalle

...and in the manner in which you did so, you conceded the point. :D

"As for the Pope saying there was no idolatrous intention, he was there, and so were the Franciscans and priests who opened the event giving thanks to God in the name of Jesus Christ."

You citing him still remains a fallacious appeal to authority. If others participated in the idolatry as well that doesn't change its nature.

"It’s all the same; call it calumny."

Wrong and you darn well know it.

It isn't "all the same" and no amount of temporizing on your part will change that.

Likewise, you still haven't shown the claim to be either libel or slander because you still haven't shown the claim to be 1.) false and 2.) that the source of the claim either knew it to be false or recklessly repeated it.

"The fact that it spreads like wildfire on the Internet and into the minds of countless of people who spread it makes it a greater gravity. In the end it will haunt those who spread it in the first place."

The truth spreads like wildfire on the Internet and you haven't shown the accusations to be anything but true.

"As for idol worship vs Mary statues, it is not a false comparison, being that we are comparing intention."

It is entirely false for several reasons.

1.) A statue of Mary represents the Queen of Heaven and the Mother Of Christ while an idol is a statue that represents a pagan, false diety. Mary is not a pagan diety. Likewise Mary is not a Catholic diety, either. So your comparison fails right there.

2.) Catholics do not worship a statue of Mary any more than they worship a statue of Christ. In the case of Christ, they worship whom the statue represents.

Idol worshippers, depending on their culture and sophistication, can and often do worship the statue itself as the physical embodiment of their pagan gods, i.e, the god is literally present in the statue.

3.) Catholics do not worship Mary at all., we venerate her. Worship is reserved for God. Pagans worship their own false gods.

So yes, your comparision is demonstrably false on multiple points.

"AntiCatholic Christians vehemently insist that Catholics kneeling and praying before a statue of Mary is idol worship."

What they claim is irrelevant since their claims are contradicted by Catholic theology.

"The issue is whether the natives were worshipping the wooden statue, or not. It all comes down to intention."

A statement that again, shows your comparison between a statue of Mary and a "wooden statue" to be a false one.

If the natives' intention was to worship what the statue represents, then the comparison is false because Catholics do not worship Mary.

If the natives' intention was to worship the statue itself, then the comparison is still false because Catholics do not worship statues at all.