"I take him at his word."Cool beans. ;-)
Frankly, there is no "presumption" a self-described former homosexual is uniquely susceptable to the material on social media profiles of active homosexuals. I mean, seriously... you're disputing that?
"You wish to appear to have a more sensitive conscience than others, and you boast about it."Nah, I just have a low tolerance for double-standards in a religious context. My
conscience is something else entirely.
"You presume to tell others what is or is not an occasion of sin.The Church offers criteria for determining precisely that. *ehem*
--Occasions of sin are external circumstances--whether of things or persons--which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.--Do I need to explain why gay-oriented sites are
"peculiar to some individual" who used to be gay? No I don't.
:)You can see how it applies as easily as I can.
It's no different than a (former) alcoholic visiting sites about bar-culture and booze in general. He already
knows what he's going to see and
knows it's going to give him the wrong ideas.
"While knowing nothing about his inner life, you accused Sciambra..."Well... that's where you're wrong. The article helpfully supplied a clear picture of his inner life:
"He still fights psychological suffering and breakdowns."So I
do know something about his inner life. Basically he's a mess and, if you think about it for a second, that contradicts the claim about "being healed".
Sick people shouldn't visit sites focusing on the exact thing that made them sick in the first place.
If you think that suggestion is arrogant and repellant, I'm in very good company. At least one Catholic diocese officially recommended the same thing on their website.
When it’s best to ‘not even go there’www.thecompassnews.org/…/when-its-best-t…The article title says it all.