A gay family member

[estesbob]

Are you guys actually saying that it’s a sin to love your children if they’re sinners?

If so, I’m in the wrong church and worshipping the wrong god.

No one has said that. What has been pointed out is that it is wrong to offer affirmation for sinful behavior h

 

[mdgspencer]

You can love your children more by praying for them than by affrimeing the behavior that separates them from God.

Are you guys actually saying that it’s a sin to love your children if they’re sinners?

If so, I’m in the wrong church and worshipping the wrong god.

 

[Joe_Stong]

“Clearly, being gay is not a choice and something that God has made them.”

Au contraire: having the attraction is what is not sinful. ACTING on it (i.e. “being gay”) is what is sinful (and physically dangerous).

Having a weakness towards alcohol (or depression, or anorexia) is NOT sinful. ACTING on it, identifying oneself with one’s urges IS sinful.

The Church does not condemn one as sinful who is attracted to the opposite sex or the same sex. Attaction alone does not constitute sin. But giving in to this attraction in a sinful way IS sinful.

Thus heterosexuals too must live chastity with the opposite sex.

But just because you can’t morally have sex with someone until or unless you are married to them, doesn’t mean there’s no friendship, love, relationships, and joy in the celibate single lifestyle!!!

This is the incredible non sequituur of most Pro-homosexual arguments…they presume (like Satan in the garden) that if you can’t eat of just ONE tree, then God’s saying “you can’t eat of ANY tree”.

No one is condemning a son or daughter who feels interest or safety or physical attraction or arousal when around those of the same sex - just as no one is condemning them if they are depressed, bi-polar, suicidal or develop Diabetes.

But love would not be defined as giving in to a persons’ weaknesses or biological disorders to make them FEEL good as opposed to getting them the help they deserve and really want.

At the root of MANY homosexuals is a distinctly powerful need for safety and friendship (indeed ALL human beings, as human beings have an existential need for love and companionship, for friendship). But the problem the experience is in the confusing sex with love and arousal for happiness.

It’s not love to allow an alcoholic to keep drinking or to allow an anorexic girl to starve herself - or to allow a depressed person to read nothing but negative literature and songs… Co-dependency is not “love” but a lack of imagination and ‘tough-love’ which seeks above all else not the ‘feeling good’ of the other, but their true, objective good.

No one - certainly not the Church and certainly not I is saying that people with same sex attraction (or heterosexual attraction) must be lonely, friendless, and sad for ever since sex for them is immoral. Life and love are so much greater than sex within marriage… Jesus was never married - neither was John the Baptist, Paul, John, Titus, Timothy, Apollos, and a host of other saints…

You can experience true love and true friendship and true satisfying relationships WITHOUT SEX.

That’s the message they ought to be told but which many Catholics, woefully ignorant of the stakes or issues or too easly buffaloed by rhetoric fail to express. And this is also what is not preached on from the pulpit either.

We need to cry out from the rooftops - I can love my children without a whiff of sex in the mix. I can love a brother, father, cousin, war-buddy to the point of diving on a hand grenade for him… all without any sex being in the mix. I can live a totally human and fulfilled life, surrounded by hundreds of caring, wonderful friends and a host of saints and angels to boot - all without the need to have sex with any of them!

In our sex-saturated society, the Good News that a child does not need to follow his every whim and urge, that he is not a slave to genetics or environment but can truly walk on the water of ‘human impossibility’ with God’s grace and while looking at Jesus NEEDS TO BE PREACHED FROM THE ROOFTOPS.

Check the CDC - active homosexuals’ life expectancy is LOWER than the general population. It’s not a “viable lifestyle” that makes one healthy physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. The life-style - the acting out of the urges is destructive - and not something a Loving parent or relative would desire for their son or relative.

The solution then is not to reject the Church or the Lord but to befriend the lonely and sad, befriend them and bring them to the Lord. Introduce them to sex-less love and sex-less relationships. Introduce them to the limitless horizon of possible loves that don’t involve sexuality.

Who here would deny that Mother Theresa and John Paul II loved millions of people with fierce and undying passion? Yet their love was altruistic, “agappe” love, not eros… their Philia love was purified with the great Friend of all our souls and made fruitful in the Spirit.

 

[Exalt]

They have let their love of their son deprive them of the fullness of Truth.

Belief which is based on unprovable faith…

Or loving thier son.

It’s not difficult to see how they made that decision.

 

[Exalt]

The solution then is not to reject the Church or the Lord but to befriend the lonely and sad, befriend them and bring them to the Lord. Introduce them to sex-less love and sex-less relationships. Introduce them to the limitless horizon of possible loves that don’t involve sexuality.

So how about dating? How about holding hands? How about kissing? How about spending a life living together? How about sleeping in the same bed? How adopting children?

That’s not sex.

Sex is only a small part of a romantic relationship. Don’t pretend that’s all a gay relationship is about. Homosexuality isn’t all about sex. In fact, I’d say that’s a small part of it for most people.

 

[Cari]

This is the incredible non sequituur of most Pro-homosexual arguments…they presume (like Satan in the garden) that if you can’t eat of just ONE tree, then God’s saying “you can’t eat of ANY tree”.

No one - certainly not the Church and certainly not I is saying that people with same sex attraction (or heterosexual attraction) must be lonely, friendless, and sad for ever since sex for them is immoral. Life and love are so much greater than sex within marriage… Jesus was never married - neither was John the Baptist, Paul, John, Titus, Timothy, Apollos, and a host of other saints…

You can experience true love and true friendship and true satisfying relationships WITHOUT SEX.

This is the point that needs to be brought up every single time the “should homosexuals live lonely lives?” question is brought up. Those who espouse it are clearly making sex the sole source of human intimacy. I know plenty of celebate heterosexuals who do not live lonely lives. I also know plenty of sexually active hetero- and homosexuals who are sexually active, and yet are very very lonely.

And as for the question posed by another poster, about what should be allowed (dating, holding hands, sharing a bed, adopting a child, etc.) the same guidelines for heterosexuals hold true for homosexuals. If an action causes me to entertain impure thoughts, then yes, I should avoid it.

To address the OP’s statement: perhaps the couple in question had just learned about their son’s sexual orientation? Perhaps in the midst of the shock, they made some decisions that time and grace will help them remedy. Without knowing the full situation, speculation is the only option we have for their actions.

If it were one of my children who were homosexual, I would view leaving the Church along the same lines as if one of them had an abortion, or got pregnant out of wedlock- I could keep loving my child, despite their sins, and I would embrace all the graces the Mass offered me to do so.

 

[adrift]

I am a bit taken back by your comment. You seem to imply that homosexuals are destined for the fires of Hell. Being a homosexual is not a sin as some people still think. It clearly states in the CCC:

I noted that you did not present the CCC in its entirety. I wonder why you cut some of it out. Anyway here it is without cuts.

2357
Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.

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.

2359
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.

Clearly, being gay is not a choice and something that God has made them.

This actually is an on going debate so it is not clear.
It is also debatable if a homosexual can change. Those who promote homosexual lifestyles are negative to the idea. There are those who claim that they have changed. How would I treat a child? The same way if they were living together, murdered, or steal. I would recognize that we are all sinners who need prayers of others to repent and try to live as Christians. The couple mentioned in the OP should contact Courage.

 

[LeahInancsi]

No one has said that. What has been pointed out is that it is wrong to offer affirmation for sinful behavior h

In the post I responsed to and several others, I got the distinct impression that this couple was expected to shun their child because he is gay. Nothing this couple has done has affirmed his lifestyle, assuming he his sexually active.

 

[Bennie_P]

So how about dating? How about holding hands? How about kissing? How about spending a life living together? How about sleeping in the same bed? How adopting children?

That’s not sex.

Sex is only a small part of a romantic relationship. Don’t pretend that’s all a gay relationship is about. Homosexuality isn’t all about sex. In fact, I’d say that’s a small part of it for most people.

If it is not about sex? then why is celibacy so wrong in your eyes?
And true love is not a feeling, it is a choice, if you have the time, please read BP XVI encyclical ON CHRISTIAN LOVE vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
Many non-believers are quick to crictize the Church’s stand on many issues, yet they seem to tremble in fear to read for themselves what the Church says/teaches about these things for themselves. May I suggest you first start by reading this document on love and what Love means in the eyes of the Church.

 

[Dale_M]

I got the distinct impression that this couple was expected to shun their child because he is gay.

Certainly the Church does not teach this. In fact, I think it is contrary to what we are called to do: love our neighbor as ourselves. Certainly we should love our children at least as much as we love our neighbor!

 

[Joe_Stong]

Can two single men adopt a child? if so, is this for the good of the child or THEIR good? Unless one of the men is the father it seems that this would do more harm - to the child - than good for the two men ON THE WHOLE - given the bell curve in sociology there will always be exceptions on the extremes.

Religious communities in the past ( composed of celibate single men) did adopt/take care of orphans. So it CAN be helpful, IF they provide a solid moral and intellectually solid basis for the child to grow up in. If they’re taking the child in FOR THEIR sake, and teaching the child to be permissive (homo or hetero) then all bets are off.

Holding hands. I’ll do you one better: bear hugs. Guys who aren’t sexually attracted to one another occasionally hug each other.

Dating’s only purpose is to find a potential spouse. If the person you’re dating isn’t going to be spouse material then you’re not dating, you’re just hanging out together. (This is the Catholic perspective, not secular one- secular society is completely confused by everything to do with sex, relationships, and “love”)

Let’s not be foolish here. When someone comes out as Gay they’re not declaring their celibate intentions to merely hold hands and “sleep in the same bed - without sex” they’re declaring that all that AND having sex with someone of the same sex is OK.

 

[mdgspencer]

Still, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder. So such activities are disordered. They can’t be compared to the relationship of a husband and wife.

So how about dating? How about holding hands? How about kissing? How about spending a life living together? How about sleeping in the same bed? How adopting children?

That’s not sex.

Sex is only a small part of a romantic relationship. Don’t pretend that’s all a gay relationship is about. Homosexuality isn’t all about sex. In fact, I’d say that’s a small part of it for most people.

 

[Mirdath]

If it is not about sex? then why is celibacy so wrong in your eyes?

There’s nothing at all wrong with celibacy – but it isn’t for everyone. And some of those people for whom it isn’t are homosexual. The Church speaks of both married life and celibacy as callings, vocations to be sought out and fulfilled, then turns around and says ‘oh, if you aren’t attracted to the opposite sex you can’t follow that vocation’. It just looks a little inconsistent, you know?

Many non-believers are quick to crictize the Church’s stand on many issues, yet they seem to tremble in fear to read for themselves what the Church says/teaches about these things for themselves. May I suggest you first start by reading this document on love and what Love means in the eyes of the Church.

The Church, or at least Benedict XVI, would seem to note that agape and eros are different yet inextricably linked. Yet you would have people attempt to break that unity, experience only half-love, all so you can feel satisfied that they’re living up to your ideals? You ask the impossible.
Joe Stong:

Let’s not be foolish here. When someone comes out as Gay they’re not declaring their celibate intentions to merely hold hands and “sleep in the same bed - without sex” they’re declaring that all that AND having sex with someone of the same sex is OK.

Have you read goofyjim’s posts here and in other threads? He self-identifies as gay but remains celibate. There are a few other members here in similar situations: out but not having sex. I have a lot of respect for them (and probably a little awe too) even though I don’t agree with their positions on morality.

However, that’s not Exalt’s point. Sex is only a small – important, yes, but small – part of romantic love. And very few people need to be ‘introduced’ to the concept of love and friendship without sex: it’s a basic human need and instinct. Your statement Exalt was responding to made it seem as though you believe homosexuals don’t know how to make friends.

mdgspencer:

Still, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder. So such activities are disordered. They can’t be compared to the relationship of a husband and wife.

Why not? ‘It’s disordered’ is not an explanation. Even victims of severe mental illness or disability can love, and while some such people may be impaired to the point of inability to consent to marriage, I would not say that renders them unable to experience agape.

 

[Bennie_P]

The Church, or at least Benedict XVI, would seem to note that agape and eros are different yet inextricably linked. Yet you would have people attempt to break that unity, experience only half-love, all so you can feel satisfied that they’re living up to your ideals? You ask the impossible.
.

We all have crosses to bear, each of us have our own shortcomings/weaknesses to overcome, SSA is not so uinque as you would want us to believe. If we allow our self-centerd passions to define us, then that is all we become. In our weaknesses we can find strength in God or our own destruction.

2Cor 12:7 -10 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. For which thing, thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart from me. And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful.

 

[Mirdath]

We all have crosses to bear, each of us have our own shortcomings/weaknesses to overcome, SSA is not so uinque as you would want us to believe.

It’s easy to say that when you aren’t the one carrying that cross, isn’t it? Or when your cross doesn’t contradict right reason by denying you the fullness of love against your will?

If we allow our self-centerd passions to define us, then that is all we become. In our weaknesses we can find strength in God or our own destruction.

We were not talking about self-centered passions but about love of another, which is by definition not self-centered.

 

[Bennie_P]

It’s easy to say that when you aren’t the one carrying that cross, isn’t it? Or when your cross doesn’t contradict right reason by denying you the fullness of love against your will?

How do you know which cross I carry?
How do you define right-reason?
Nobody denies your use of free-will, you may choose to live in the Church or out of it, if you choose to live in it, then you should submit to its teachings. If you deny it’s teachings are true, then you deny that the Church was an institution started by Christ. If you don’t believe in Chirst, then why do you care what the Church teaches?

We were not talking about self-centered passions but about love of another, which is by definition not self-centered.

**Is it really love or lust? **
SSA is a tough cross to carry, but to accept acting out on that attraction is ok, well, to me that contradicts right reason.

 

[reborn_pagan]

This isn’t a delimma for me but given the fact I am about to get married and have kids soon after it could happen to me asnd it got me thinking of what to do. It all started with a fellow member of the Knights of Columbus who was a very active member ask for a withdrawel of his membership out of the blue. Not only that but him and his wife stopped going to church altogether. This guy and his wife were very committed to their faith so it was a mystery what brought this on for them. I later found out that teir son is gay and their love for their son was coming into conflict with their faith. Then I started thinking about me and what if that happened to me. If I had a son or daughter who was gay I hope I’d love them enough to support them but on the other hand I have the faith I love so much as well. If it weren’t for my faith I can honestly say I wouldn’t even want to get married let alone have kids. So my question is what do you do in a situation like this.

In my opinion. If its what they are it’s what they are, and all you can do is love them. The Bible says “love thy nieghbor” and I think you should love your nieghbor,child,aunt,uncle ect. no matter what

 

[mdgspencer]

When the Catechism of the Catholic Church says homosexuality is disordered, it says that homosexual attraction to the same sex is disordered. It fact it is possible for love to be tangled with evil, as it is with adulterous love for example. I don’t think to simply invoke the word love provides any justification.

Why not? ‘It’s disordered’ is not an explanation. Even victims of severe mental illness or disability can love, and while some such people may be impaired to the point of inability to consent to marriage, I would not say that renders them unable to experience agape.

 

[Joe_Stong]

No one has ever claimed that people who experience same sex attraction - or those who are prone to alcoholic addiction, or depression, or whatever other disorder are incapable of love or being loved.

Nor has anyone said they’re stupid, intrinsically malevolent people oozing with horribleness.

All that is asserted - within the context of a correct view of the human person, per se and the Christian soul per se, is that the sexual attraction for someone of the same sex is not ordered to their human or spiritual good, thus is DIS-ORDERED.

That drive will not and cannot lead to the good of the human person on a human and spiritual plane, just as alcoholic addiction, depression, etc. if given in to won’t lead to human flourishing and spiritual life.

But disorder - as all health issues - is NOT the same thing as “morally awful” or incapable of doing good or knowing the truth.

They aren’t any less human and thus any less endowed with rights than the rest of us. But being equal doesn’t mean they (or we) have the right to invent goodness by willing it so or invent reality by sheer force of will such that intrinsic unhygenic acts will magically be clean and harmless.

Not everything that someone subjectively thinks will make them happy REALLY WILL MAKE THEM HAPPY! Not everything that FEELS good IS GOOD. And those of us who wish others NOT hurt themselves (with the best of intentions and “sincerity”) are not the ones who ‘hate’ them; in reality it’s those who give in to their every whim that leads to an early death that are not showing true love.

Love doesn’t say to the alcoholic “Hey, here have a beer and then ya’know, drive home mmmkay?”

If friends don’t let friends drive drunk, why in the world would friends allow other friends to be “gay” as in sexually active outside of Christian marriage as though their ‘feeling good’ is more important than BEING GOOD???

 

[Mirdath]

How do you know which cross I carry?

It’s a guess – but then that statement was mostly rhetorical. I see a lot of ‘oh, well, sucks to be you’ sentiment on this issue coming from people for whom it is no cross.

How do you define right-reason?

Consistent, logical thinking based on universally acceptable postulates. Telling someone that they are not allowed to experience human love to the fullest because of their attractions is inconsistent with the Church’s exaltation of Love and certainly not founded on any sort of universally-held knowledge.

Nobody denies your use of free-will, you may choose to live in the Church or out of it, if you choose to live in it, then you should submit to its teachings.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. You join the club, you follow the rules.

If you deny it’s teachings are true, then you deny that the Church was an institution started by Christ.

This not so much. I obviously do not believe the Church has it right, but denying its founding in Jesus of Nazareth, or at least his followers? No, I’m not there. I’m quite the fan of Jesus’ ethical and moral teachings; I just don’t think he was God, and I have some rather serious issues with the ethical and moral teachings of later contributors to the corpus of Catholicism.

If you don’t believe in Chirst, then why do you care what the Church teaches?

Because elements of the Church are trying to impose their moral beliefs on me and others who do not subscribe to its teachings. If it weren’t for that, I wouldn’t care in the slightest.

Is it really love or lust?

Exactly. How would you know? How do you know whether a given heterosexual couple is experiencing love or lust? You take their word for it. Trust me: it’s quite possible for a woman to be in love with a woman or for a man to be in love with a man.

Further, you linked an article on love, not lust, and I was speaking on that article in my post. So yes, we were talking about love.

SSA is a tough cross to carry, but to accept acting out on that attraction is ok, well, to me that contradicts right reason.

So, uh, how do you define right reason?

mdgspencer:

It fact it is possible for love to be tangled with evil, as it is with adulterous love for example.

Stop right there. ‘Adulterous’ has absolutely no meaning when you aren’t comparing it to the relationship and the love of husband and wife. Yes, it’s evil, but it’s certainly comparable – and its evil comes from violation of vows, not any kind of sexual act.

I don’t think to simply invoke the word love provides any justification.

It doesn’t. But I’m not just invoking it – I’m asking why you think that, for example, a woman can only feel true romantic love toward a man or vice versa.