People draw a false distinction between "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs" (those who struggle with same-sex attractions, SSAs) and "sodomites" (those who, in addition, engage in filthy acts with those of the same sex).

However, since Jesus' high moral standard said adultery can be committed even in one's heart, aren't acts of sodomy committed in all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs' hearts? Thus aren't all ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs sodomites?

Only in the sense that 99.9% of hetrosɛҳuąƖs are 'fornicators'.

I am of the opinion that if a person publicly identifies them self as one with same sex attraction, they are guilty of the sin in their heart.  The church may need to in the future attach an anathama or condemnation to this.  They do this when needed, and defeating ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ infiltration is needed.  "If someone says that they have same sex attraction, let them be anathama."  The syllabus version - "Someone can be in the state of grace while publicly identifying them self as attracted to the same sex. - condemned."  

This starts as a problem of diabolical obsession.  And, that means that it is from an outside source.  But, when defined as an "orientation", it tells me that it is no longer from outside.  It tells me that they are overpowered/"oriented" by the many and strong temptations/obsession of the devil.  It tells of an admitted defeat. That means that it has taken root in the heart.  That is why they say it is "deep seeded".  A public SSA person is guilty of the sin in their heart.  

You really need to stop posting.

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity = same-sex attraction.
Sodomy = sɛҳuąƖ acts against nature (i.e. acting upon it).

Simply having the attraction or orientation does not constitute sin if there's no CONSENT to it, just like in the normal heterosɛҳuąƖ world.  Unlike heterosɛҳuąƖ attraction, however, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ attraction is inherently disordered, and there could be some culpability involved depending upon whether prior actual sin led to or caused the disorder.  Moral theologians certainly do distinguish between sins of thought and sins of action.

You evidently have absolutely no clue about what the term "distinction" even means, and yet you go around deposing popes?

There is no "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ orientation." Why do you insist on accepting this Modernist lie?

Do you believe that people tempted to commit self abuse have a "monosɛҳuąƖ orientation?" Of course you don't. No one does. Why do you accept one of Kertbeny's damnable falsehoods, but not the other?

The church may need to in the future attach an anathama or condemnation to this.  They do this when needed, and defeating ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ infiltration is needed.  "If someone says that they have same sex attraction, let them be anathama."  The syllabus version - "Someone can be in the state of grace while publicly identifying them self as attracted to the same sex. - condemned."

:applause:

This starts as a problem of diabolical obsession.  And, that means that it is from an outside source.  But, when defined as an "orientation", it tells me that it is no longer from outside.  It tells me that they are overpowered/"oriented"

disoriented

by the many and strong temptations/obsession of the devil.  It tells of an admitted defeat. That means that it has taken root in the heart.  That is why they say it is "deep seeded".  A public SSA person is guilty of the sin in their heart.  

You guys are nothing but painted sepulchers.

You really need to stop posting.

Bad mass today?

No really, that is not only extraordinarily rude (which I note is a temptation we can all fall to quite easily, and I'm not trying to pick on you in particular, Ladislaus), but it's probably a opinion best left to the moderator(s). I remember seeing an actual poll on here last year if a particular member should "stop posting" or "be banned." I really think the "report" button is sufficient to alert the moderator(s) to an inappropriate post, or possibly a more charitable response than "go away".

(Again, I'm really not picking on you; I don't get around much here these days, though it's my "go to" Catholic forum, and after a wonderful Mass this morning, I found this a bit disheartening.)

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity = same-sex attraction.
Sodomy = sɛҳuąƖ acts against nature (i.e. acting upon it).

Today. Ten years ago "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity" and "sodomy" were used interchangeably and both considered a mental disorder even in the secular West. I fear semantics (and medical terminology and state law) takes away from the beautiful, if cutting, simplicity of the Word of Our Lord, which is, I think, what Geremia was getting at. No?

I'm given to several temptations, but rarely go about insisting on be labeled by those temptations, even the stronger ones. Let's take the 2nd Commandment, which is actually fairly more complicated by canon law than the simplicity of Holy Writ: don't use God's name in vain. And we all do it, probably (though I'm aware we probably each have scruples which tug at us regarding a particular point of Faith and maybe there are people who would practice this one particular commandment for a lifetime). So we might say, "Good Lord!" and it's an ejaculation of thought/voice that is, in fact, a prayer to protect us from something we've just read, seen, or heard. Or is it? Maybe we say it habitually when someone sneezes without covering their mouths, and we're more disgusted by someone else's action than we are asking for protection from the spray of biological mystery that is now in the air.

It becomes so prevalent that we don't even think about it during our self-examination before confession, possibly.

And yet it's a big one, I'd say, given it's importance of place in the Commandments both via Moses as well as Our Lord. It's not "trendy" to say "Good Lord", by any means (and if anything, is possibly "traditional" insofar as it sets "us" traditional Catholics apart from "them": either those who simply are lukewarm on the topic and exclaim "OMG!" without considering Who the "G" is in the abbreviation, or those who use the ultimate form of vulgarity on a common basis).

And I think what Geremia is suggesting here is, essentially, that we 2nd Commandment breakers don't go about wanting a legalized breakdown of how exactly we tend to break the 2nd Commandment, and at which point we've really gone too far, and so forth. Yes, some are venial sins, while others are mortal sins unto death, but to desire to be labeled one way or the other, as if one is incapable by even the grace of God and prayer and intercession, to "change" one's speaking patterns, or thoughts about God, as if it is somehow not our fault, is not Catholic.

We all fall short, indeed. In various sundry ways, even at times in ways that aren't characteristic of ourselves. Do we "get a pass" somehow for falling short? Can you imagine telling Our Lord, "Yes, Lord, I often use Your Most Holy Name in the most casual of ways, and it is offensive, but I was born this way and while I understand fully that that old dusty Magesterium says "with You all things are possible," well, that just doesn't hold true for me, because I have a brain dysfunction that gives me a pass, so, now, move on over and let me in the Pearly Gates thank you!"

I just don't think that's going to wash. And yet when we ask for such labels to be applied to our conditions, as if Lady Gaga was a prophet when she sang about being "Born this Way", aren't we actually saying "I cannot be held accountable for [sin] because God made me so, and I can't help this, and my struggle is greater even than that which even God can handle!", is mocking the First Commandment, upon which all other commandments hang (along with "Love thy neighbor as thyself").

I really think that's all she's saying.

I hope I've caused no offense. May God grant us all a most Blessed Day.