A Casual Acquaintance of Yours Is a Homosexual

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lilyofthevalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Trelow:
Im sure thay can. Just as a man and a woman may be able to live in a chaste life sharing quarter with each other outside of the scarcement of marriage. Both are immoral. There is no difference.
Hi Trelow!

Well, if it is immoral for two individuals who live with same-sex attraction to live together, how is the same individual going to an appointment with his spiritual director not objectively sinful as well? How does Courage, the Church’s chastity support group endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family, not also become objectively scandalous and therefore sinful? Should the Church disavow its endorsement of David Morrison’s book and his support of chastity as he lives with his former same-sex partner?

The temptation to develop an easy, all-encompassing solution for a sin, that callously ignores the inherent God-given dignity of the individual, is never so great as when one is discussing the issue of same-sex attraction. I note in your post that you cite a preference for the term “sodomite” even, it seems, when discussing the example of a chaste man who is subject to same sex attractions. You’ll forgive me if I note that this is a rather pitiless reduction of a man to his temptations in complete disregard for then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons” which states: “Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.”

The examples that you cite as comparable sins, those of masturbation and fornication, aren’t really comparable at all. In the scheme you have articulated, where the chaste yet same-sex attracted individual risks the sin of scandal in his intimate relationships and so must avoid them all, the comparable solutions in the case of the masturbator and the fornicator would be castration and misogyny, respectively. Both are sins and both demonstrate a cynical lack of faith in God.
 
Other Eric:
Hi Trelow!

Well, if it is immoral for two individuals who live with same-sex attraction to live together, how is the same individual going to an appointment with his spiritual director not objectively sinful as well? How does Courage, the Church’s chastity support group endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family, not also become objectively scandalous and therefore sinful? Should the Church disavow its endorsement of David Morrison’s book and his support of chastity as he lives with his former same-sex partner?
Would the same leniency be given for a heterosexual man, and heterosexual woman to live together outside of wedlock?
The temptation to develop an easy, all-encompassing solution for a sin, that callously ignores the inherent God-given dignity of the individual, is never so great as when one is discussing the issue of same-sex attraction. I note in your post that you cite a preference for the term “sodomite” even, it seems, when discussing the example of a chaste man who is subject to same sex attractions. You’ll forgive me if I note that this is a rather pitiless reduction of a man to his temptations in complete disregard for then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Letter To The Bishops Of The Catholic Church On The Pastoral Care Of Homosexual Persons” which states: “Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a “homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.”
I prefer sodomite to gay, and SSA to homosexual
One cannot be a sodomite without committing the act. I believe that distinction is very important.

Clearly his letter speaks to the same matter, by letting some one classify themselves as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” you are giving primary attention to their sexual attraction. Not towards the care of the person. your quote actually supports my position, thank you. Separate the sinner for the sin, even when sexual deviants are involved.
The examples that you cite as comparable sins, those of masturbation and fornication, aren’t really comparable at all. In the scheme you have articulated, where the chaste yet same-sex attracted individual risks the sin of scandal in his intimate relationships and so must avoid them all, the comparable solutions in the case of the masturbator and the fornicator would be castration and misogyny, respectively. Both are sins and both demonstrate a cynical lack of faith in God.
As I corrected. Masturbation, contraception, and sodomy are all wrong in the same manner. Sexual acts that are not open to life. All evil on the same level and for the same reason.

Those who suffer for SSA have the same rights anyone else does, if they want an intimate relationship then they can find a wife and get married. They are people just like anyone else. Their only problem is that they suffer from a physiological disease. That is no reason to normalize the behavior.

I am done with this discussion. There are no extra rights awarded to someone just because they suffer from a particular illness.To say such, is to say that they are their disability, and that my friend is very unchristian.

Peace be with you.
 
there are different approaches to a subject like this…most of the time its a case by case bases…how open the person is to conversation??..will he listen to what you have to say??..most of the time if its a casual aquainance you can live your life as the gospel unto him…talk to him about jesus…if he says that he believes in christ then pray for the man…usually when you find out someone is a believer its easier to talk to him and correct him about sin…but if he’s not…most of the time it really puts them on the defensive…most believers want to be good…and don’t want to violate gods word…so if he’s a believer then you are to take him to scripture and lovingly correct him…but, per say he’s not a christian…then develop your friendship where you can get into a position where he respects your word and has an open heart about it…but, if you end up correcting someone who is not a christian…your correction is in vain…sinners only do whats in their nature…you must first change the nature…then correct…Joe
 
40.png
Trelow:
Would the same leniency be given for a heterosexual man, and heterosexual woman to live together outside of wedlock?

I prefer sodomite to gay, and SSA to homosexual
One cannot be a sodomite without committing the act. I believe that distinction is very important.

Clearly his letter speaks to the same matter, by letting some one classify themselves as “heterosexual” or “homosexual” you are giving primary attention to their sexual attraction. Not towards the care of the person. your quote actually supports my position, thank you. Separate the sinner for the sin, even when sexual deviants are involved.

As I corrected. Masturbation, contraception, and sodomy are all wrong in the same manner. Sexual acts that are not open to life. All evil on the same level and for the same reason.

Those who suffer for SSA have the same rights anyone else does, if they want an intimate relationship then they can find a wife and get married. They are people just like anyone else. Their only problem is that they suffer from a physiological disease. That is no reason to normalize the behavior.

I am done with this discussion. There are no extra rights awarded to someone just because they suffer from a particular illness.To say such, is to say that they are their disability, and that my friend is very unchristian.

Peace be with you.
Hi Trelow!

In certain circumstances, then yes, the same leniency would be given to a heterosexual man and woman who lived in the same house together, sleeping in different bedrooms. It would not be reasonable in every circumstance to expect them to move apart from each other and incur greater financial hardship. As long as the couple lives in a manner that does not lead one to reasonably conclude that they are living in sin, scandal is not invoked.

As for the use of the term sodomite, it is clearly meant to seat the entire identity of the individual in what he does. Even if they commit the act out of a psychological illness, “to say such, is to say that they are their disability, and that my friend is very unchristian.” This seems to me to be the issue referred to in the Cardinal’s letter. If the Church refuses to refer to the person as a heterosexual, a homosexual, gay or a sodomite, surely she expects the same from her members.

I was not aware of articulating any special rights for the same-sex attracted. Just a freedom of association that is understood to apply to all. Now if I was saying something different I invite you to further clarify and perhaps quote what I have written to cause you to come to this conclusion. It would help me to write clearer and avoid embarrassing mistakes such as confusing the words “fornication” and “contraception.”
 
Other Eric:
In certain circumstances, then yes, the same leniency would be given to a heterosexual man and woman who lived in the same house together, sleeping in different bedrooms. It would not be reasonable in every circumstance to expect them to move apart from each other and incur greater financial hardship. As long as the couple lives in a manner that does not lead one to reasonably conclude that they are living in sin, scandal is not invoked.

I was not aware of articulating any special rights for the same-sex attracted. Just a freedom of association that is understood to apply to all.
It would have to be an exceptional circumstance for a heterosexual couple to cohabitate but with the intent to marry but living chastely. I can think of no corollary exception for a homosexual oriented “couple” who are unable to have the intent to marry.
 
Dear OtherEric

I just wanted to drop you a line to say how impressed I am with your talent in debate and your eloquence. You have expressed my sentiments that I share in common with you, better than I ever could.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
 
40.png
felra:
It would have to be an exceptional circumstance for a heterosexual couple to cohabitate but with the intent to marry but living chastely. I can think of no corollary exception for a homosexual oriented “couple” who are unable to have the intent to marry.
Hi felra!

Perhaps a brother and a sister living together in the appropriate corollary to the example of two same-sex attracted individuals living together. I don’t understand why one would have to expect marriage to result at all.
 
I’ve had several casual aquaintances that were vocally “gay”. Always at work. When they would begin to insert their “idenity” into a conversation, I would identify myself as a practicing, believing, obedient Catholic. Afterwards, they’d keep their distance from me or when speaking to me, not bring their proclivities into any of our discussions again.
Unless a person is confrontational, (and in work situations, I haven’t found that), waving the “Catholic flag” against the “rainbow flag” works like waving a Crucifix at a vampire. 😃
 
40.png
springbreeze:
Dear friends

Please don’t anyone throw stones at me, but I believe that they do not know medically or psychologically what is the origin of homosexuality. To say there is a ‘cure’ when no-one knows the cause is troubling for me.

I do have gay friends and I also have friends who are hetrosexual all of them are sinners, I am a sinner.

I cannot imagine the awful struggle, tornness and duplicity for a homosexual male or female between their Catholic faith and their own sexuality. It must be a horrendous cross. I think love and kindness and a gentle approach is always called for not just in this situation but in any matters of charity where one soul is aiding another soul to overcome sin of any nature, in Christ Jesus.

God Bless you and much love and peace to you

Teresa
I couldn’t agree more. I wish more people thought like you do Teresa.

As Jesus said, “let the one without sin cast the first stone”.
I don’t qualify!
 
Other Eric:
It would help me to write clearer and avoid embarrassing mistakes such as confusing the words “fornication” and “contraception.”
I apologize, my brain and hands are not always on the same page, besides it was past my bed time.

I’ll have no further discourse with you regarding this issue. It simply is going nowhere.

The posts are there for those to read and take the issue to prayer.
 
Actually, I have close family members who are practicing homosexuals as well as some friends and co-workers who are. I suspect that a number of my friends who are Catholic religious and clergy (priests and bishops) are also homosexuals, though they have not announced this openly, perhaps for fear of what others might say about them.

I say show love and respect to all people and do not pry into their personal lives unless they are committing some sexual crime against another person who is being sexually victimized against their will. If two or more persons choose to engage in consentual homosexual relations, so be it. It’s none of anyone’s business.
 
Dang, I hate it when I’m right.

*Declaration
On Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
Persona Humana

GIVEN BY
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ON DECEMBER 29, 1975*

VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.


A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.


In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. **But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. **For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

XIII

It is up to the Bishops to** instruct the faithful in the moral teaching concerning sexual morality, however great may be the difficulties in carrying out this work in the face of ideas and practices generally prevailing today. This traditional doctrine must be studied more deeply. It must be handed on in a way capable of properly enlightening the consciences of those confronted with new situations and it must be enriched with a discernment of all the elements that can truthfully and usefully be brought forward about the meaning and value of human sexuality. But the principles and norms of moral living reaffirmed in this Declaration must be faithfully held and taught. It will especially be necessary to bring the faithful to understand that the Church holds these principles not as old and inviolable superstitions, nor out of some Manichaean prejudice, as is often alleged, but rather because she knows with certainty that they are in complete harmony with the Divine order of creation and with the spirit of Christ, and therefore also with human dignity.**

It is likewise the Bishops’ mission to** see that a sound doctrine enlightened by faith and directed by the Magisterium of the Church is taught in faculties of theology and in seminaries. Bishops must also ensure that confessors enlighten people’s consciences and that catechetical instruction is given in perfect fidelity to Catholic doctrine.**

…edited due to space constraints…

All lay people, for their part, by virtue of their rights and duties in the work of the apostolate, should endeavor to act in the same way.

…once again edited to fit the 5000…

At the audience granted on November 7, 1975, to the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Sovereign Pontiff by Divine Providence Pope Paul VI approved this Declaration “On certain questions concerning sexual ethics,” confirmed it and ordered its publication.

*Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on December 29th, 1975.

Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect

Most Rev. Jerome Hamer, O.P.
Titular Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary*

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html
 
4 marks:
Actually, I have close family members who are practicing homosexuals as well as some friends and co-workers who are. I suspect that a number of my friends who are Catholic religious and clergy (priests and bishops) are also homosexuals, though they have not announced this openly, perhaps for fear of what others might say about them.

I say show love and respect to all people and do not pry into their personal lives unless they are committing some sexual crime against another person who is being sexually victimized against their will. If two or more persons choose to engage in consentual homosexual relations, so be it. It’s none of anyone’s business.
If I had “close” relationship with family and friends whom I had knowledge are actively engaging in the blatant sin of sexual relations outside the covenant of marriage, I would have the duty and right to tactfully extend to them the love and respect of Christ. I fail to see how a muted, observatory, “hands off”, response to “what they choose to do in the privacy of their own bedroom/homes“ is an appropriate Christian response; especially if they profess faith. We are talking about matters of the soul and basic human dignity here.

Taking the same approach, the “practicing” drug/alcoholic/gambling addict who is “consensual” and apparently non-destructive in their choice of “personal” activities and of whom we have a “close” relationship with is left up to their own vice/devises? What about of speaking the truth and light of Jesus Christ which has the power to save and deliver from darkness and death? What about being the lamp on the hill, the salt of the earth? Such an approach sounds pitifully inadequate, dispassionate and perhaps too politically correct, when one is comfortable with leaving a person whom you have a “close” relationship with continue on the road to self destruction …“With [close] friends like that, who needs enemies?”

Lets not forget the words of Jesus to the righteous and self-satisfied in His day, “He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me’.” (Matthew 25:45). I would think that those living in opposition to the truth of the Gospel are amongst the “least ones” in need of our kindness to minister to their temporal and spiritual needs …and if not by “close” family/friends, then by whom?
 
40.png
Trelow:
Dang, I hate it when I’m right.

Declaration
On Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics
Persona Humana

GIVEN BY
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ON DECEMBER 29, 1975


All lay people, for their part, by virtue of their rights and duties in the work of the apostolate, should endeavor to act in the same way.

At the audience granted on November 7, 1975, to the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Sovereign Pontiff by Divine Providence Pope Paul VI approved this Declaration “On certain questions concerning sexual ethics,” confirmed it and ordered its publication.

Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on December 29th, 1975.

*Franjo Cardinal Seper *
Prefect

*Most Rev. Jerome Hamer, O.P. *
*Titular Archbishop of Lorium *
Secretary

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html
Thanks, Trelow, this was exactly what I was saying in my previous post.
 
40.png
felra:
Thanks, Trelow, this was exactly what I was saying in my previous post.
“Tolerance over prudence” is the chant of the liberal.

Although I see it as ignorance rather than willful dissent.
 
40.png
Trelow:
Dang, I hate it when I’m right.
VIII

At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.


A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.


In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. **But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. **For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

XIII

It is up to the Bishops to** instruct the faithful in the moral teaching concerning sexual morality, however great may be the difficulties in carrying out this work in the face of ideas and practices generally prevailing today. This traditional doctrine must be studied more deeply. It must be handed on in a way capable of properly enlightening the consciences of those confronted with new situations and it must be enriched with a discernment of all the elements that can truthfully and usefully be brought forward about the meaning and value of human sexuality. But the principles and norms of moral living reaffirmed in this Declaration must be faithfully held and taught. It will especially be necessary to bring the faithful to understand that the Church holds these principles not as old and inviolable superstitions, nor out of some Manichaean prejudice, as is often alleged, but rather because she knows with certainty that they are in complete harmony with the Divine order of creation and with the spirit of Christ, and therefore also with human dignity.**

see that a sound doctrine enlightened by faith and directed by the Magisterium of the Church is taught in faculties of theology and in seminaries. Bishops must also ensure that confessors enlighten people’s consciences and that catechetical instruction is given in perfect fidelity to Catholic doctrine.

All lay people, for their part, by virtue of their rights and duties in the work of the apostolate, should endeavor to act in the same way.
Hi Trelow!

I’m afraid I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. The document you have cited refers only to the actual practice of sexual congress. I don’t think there’s anyone who seriously believes that the Church does not teach that the sexual act, when engaged in by two individuals of the same gender, is gravely immoral. They may insist that the Church is wrong, but they do not deny that she calls such an act a sin.

Where I differ from you is that I am not willing to go further than this document and say that intimate, non-sexual relationships between same-sex attracted individuals must always invoke the sin of scandal. To say such betrays the unjust conviction that such individuals are really not capable of forming such friendships, that God simply does not provide graces to them sufficient to overcome their temptations and as such are incorrigibly doomed to sin.
 
Other Eric:
Hi Trelow!
Where I differ from you is that I am not willing to go further than this document and say that intimate, non-sexual relationships between same-sex attracted individuals must always invoke the sin of scandal. To say such betrays the unjust conviction that such individuals are really not capable of forming such friendships, that God simply does not provide graces to them sufficient to overcome their temptations and as such are incorrigibly doomed to sin.
Curious, does this avoidance of unjust conviction extent itself to non-sexual intimates in “possession” of a “complementary” sexual orientation living together in an exclusive living arrangement? I would think that prudence would dictate otherwise.
 
Other Eric:
Hi Trelow!

I’m afraid I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. The document you have cited refers only to the actual practice of sexual congress. I don’t think there’s anyone who seriously believes that the Church does not teach that the sexual act, when engaged in by two individuals of the same gender, is gravely immoral. They may insist that the Church is wrong, but they do not deny that she calls such an act a sin.

Where I differ from you is that I am not willing to go further than this document and say that intimate, non-sexual relationships between same-sex attracted individuals must always invoke the sin of scandal. To say such betrays the unjust conviction that such individuals are really not capable of forming such friendships, that God simply does not provide graces to them sufficient to overcome their temptations and as such are incorrigibly doomed to sin.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people

could it be any more plain?

People wonder why there is such a moral vacuum in our world when looking at the poll here less than 6% are willing to admonish this sinner and instruct the ignorant?

It’s not about how they can conduct themselves with one another. It is about the appearance of them to those who know that they have an unnatural attraction to the same sex, and have no reason to suspect that it is a chaste and prudent relation ship, hence the scandal. Is it fair? NO! Does that matter? No, not really, somethings are more important than fairness.
 
Let us change the question.

A causal acquaintance of yours steals supplies form the office to resale.

What do you do?

I’ll wager to say the poll results would be a bit different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top