Applying the Catechism to Homosexuality

[sirach2v4]

let’s look at these paragraphs

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. (1036, 1804)
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. (597)

Are people with same-sex attraction “free” with respect to acting out on SSA? How would these paragraphs apply to those with SSA at any time in their lives?

How would these paragraphs exhonorate people with SSA?

 

[bisco]

they are free NOT to act on them.

 

[bisco]

people with ssa do not need to be exonerated, they have not sinned.

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I don’t believe the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality. I say this only as a disclaimer. I do not say them because I want to debate. However, regardless of whether or not I agree with the teachings, I would have to say that a person is fully culpable for homosexual acts so long as they don’t have a mental illness or some other impediment such as mentioned above in the Catechism.

 

[bisco]

oh boy.

 

[cena]

let’s look at these paragraphs

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. (1036, 1804)
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. (597)

Are people with same-sex attraction “free” with respect to acting out on SSA? How would these paragraphs apply to those with SSA at any time in their lives?

How would these paragraphs exhonorate people with SSA?

From the catechism
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.

They can’t act on it

Acts are usually voluntary

 

[dmar198]

let’s look at these paragraphs

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts. (1036, 1804)
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors. (597)

Are people with same-sex attraction “free” with respect to acting out on SSA?

I think there is evidence that people with same-sex attraction are free with respect to acting out on SSA. For example, they can choose to avoid situations where they are tempted to engage in sexual contact with someone of the same sex. Anyway, that’s what I think. What do you think?

How would these paragraphs apply to those with SSA at any time in their lives?

They would apply to people with ssa by helping us classify their acts as either free or unfree, and they might help us clarify how far someone was responsible for their action. For example, if a person with same-sex attraction was raped, we could use paragraph 1734 to determine that their participation was involuntary and therefore unfree. We could use paragraph 1735 to determine that their responsibility is diminished through fear and duress, in addition to it not being a free act.

I think there are typically observable characteristics of a person with impaired freedom, and therefore these paragraphs typically imply diminished responsibility only when those signs are in place. What do you think?

 

[cena]

Personally, I don’t believe the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality. I say this only as a disclaimer. I do not say them because I want to debate. However, regardless of whether or not I agree with the teachings, I would have to say that a person is fully culpable for homosexual acts so long as they don’t have a mental illness or some other impediment such as mentioned above in the Catechism.

Why do you pick and choose teachings?

Why do people listen to the Church about their creator and their end but not about singular teachings on morality? Someone please explain this

 

[JamalChristophr]

Why do you pick and choose teachings?

Why do people listen to the Church about their creator and their end but not about singular teachings on morality? Someone please explain this

Some Catholics simply believe the church is wrong, seems to me.

However, I would say this:

1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief…CCC

Having said that…I’d definitely like to say:

“But for the Grace of God, there go I!!”

 

[sirach2v4]

The issue that I am raising here is that persons with SSA are different. Every waking moment is a temptation, a SSA temptation, to commit a thought, word, or action in accordance with SSA. Is this not a mitigating factor under the paragraphs that I quoted in post #1? It seems to me that it would be. Or, in more explicit terms, people with SSA do NOT have freedom to choose a heterosexual lifestyle (until a cure comes along).

Some would state for emphasis that the Church will never approve homosexual relations. Fine. It will also never approve contraception, divorce, adultery, murder, stealing, lying (generally), abortion, etc. That doesn’t resolve much.

In this philosophy forum, I am asking whether this lack of freedom minimizes or eliminates culpability for sin, even though objectively the actions under consideration are considered grave matter?

I have read and know what the other paragraphs of the Catechism state. What I’m focusing on is, are the SSA-afflicted persons culpable for the corresponding acts of grave matter?

The Church considers SSA to be a “grave” disorder. There you go, Doesn’t a “grave” disorder nullify sinful culpability for engaging in SSA behavior under 1735? 1735 is very broad and even includes “other” conditions which compromise one’s freedom.

The responses to my OP seem to be written largely ignoring 1735 which is also part of the same deposit of faith, which all must accept. A previous post said that only mental illness would reduce culpability for sin, but that’s not what 1735 says. There are more conditions, including even habit, and social and psychological factors. I feel people are more contradicting 1735 than accepting what it says.

 

[JamalChristophr]

You are correct. The catechism called it a “grave disorder”. And so it is. I think the catechism could have also made it more clear that it is sin, so I’m a little frustrated at the soft approach the catechism seemingly took.

Yes, there are mitigating factors. But that does not mean it is not sin. A mitigating factor can transform what might be a mortal sin into sin that is not deadly. It varies from case to case. Final judgement of a soul is between that person and God. If I had SSA I would definitely want to have a regular confessor and/or spiritual director to help me.

I don’t have it, but I know I need a director in any case.

 

[dmar198]

The issue that I am raising here is that persons with SSA are different. Every waking moment is a temptation, a SSA temptation, to commit a thought, word, or action in accordance with SSA.

I’ve never heard this before. Perhaps there is something inherent to same-sex attraction that triggers sexual temptation more frequently, by an order of magnitude, than opposite-sex attraction. But somehow that seems incredibly unlikely, and it makes me think I am misunderstanding you. Do you think people with SSA automatically have sexual temptations at every waking moment, that other people don’t? I ask because I don’t want to misunderstand you.

Is this not a mitigating factor under the paragraphs that I quoted in post #1?

It sounds to me like it would be, if it was true. To me, your description seems similar to acting under duress. If someone was constantly barraged with temptation to sexual sin at every waking moment, I don’t know if I could blame them for giving in. Pray, pray, pray for anyone who suffers in such a way.

I am asking whether this lack of freedom minimizes or eliminates culpability for sin, even though objectively the actions under consideration are considered grave matter?

It is my understanding that diminished freedom does diminish a person’s culpability for sin, and a complete absence of freedom would result in a complete absence of culpability.

I have read and know what the other paragraphs of the Catechism state. What I’m focusing on is, are the SSA-afflicted persons culpable for the corresponding acts of grave matter?

Insofar as they fully understand that what they do is a mortal sin and freely do it anyway, they are culpable. If they truly don’t understand the sinfulness of the action or truly have diminished freedom, it’s not a mortal sin, unless I’ve misunderstood something.

The Church considers SSA to be a “grave” disorder. There you go, Doesn’t a “grave” disorder nullify sinful culpability for engaging in SSA behavior under 1735?

I don’t think it nullifies sinful culpability by itself, because I don’t think the term “grave” says anything about degree of knowledge or consent. I think the term “grave” just means the disorder is very serious. How do you understand the term?

 

[bisco]

every waking moment is a temptation for me as well. and i don’t even have ssa. but i do not have the freedom to ‘choose a heterosexual lifestyle’ whatever that means.

 

[sirach2v4]

I don’t want the discussion to get lost in wording about “every waking moment.” What I was referring to is someone 1) whose identity 24/7 involved SSA and 2) who might well have many temptations to sin in thought, word, and deed throughout the day.

1735 must be in the Catechism for a reason. Over and above the legalistic wording, after all, it must be in there because it reflects God’s mercy, as best as we understand it.

I’ve tried a dozen times in this forum to find somebody who agrees with it, that it might actually pertain to anything at all. There seems to be a definite bias against forgiving anybody who is afflicted with SSA, is all that I can say.

 

[JamalChristophr]

I don’t want the discussion to get lost in wording about “every waking moment.” What I was referring to is someone 1) whose identity 24/7 involved SSA and 2) who might well have many temptations to sin in thought, word, and deed throughout the day.

1735 must be in the Catechism for a reason. Over and above the legalistic wording, after all, it must be in there because it reflects God’s mercy, as best as we understand it.

I’ve tried a dozen times in this forum to find somebody who agrees with it, that it might actually pertain to anything at all. There seems to be a definite bias against forgiving anybody who is afflicted with SSA, is all that I can say.

Sin is still sin. Are you sure you don’t want to speak to a confessor about this? We are not saying person x is going to hell, but we are saying that consenting or giving in to these desires and not trying to fight against them puts that person in a dangerous position. God looks upon the heart of a man. If one is repentant at death, I would say that is sufficient for salvation.

God Bless You!

 

[cena]

The issue that I am raising here is that persons with SSA are different. Every waking moment is a temptation, a SSA temptation, to commit a thought, word, or action in accordance with SSA. Is this not a mitigating factor under the paragraphs that I quoted in post #1? It seems to me that it would be. Or, in more explicit terms, people with SSA do NOT have freedom to choose a heterosexual lifestyle (until a cure comes along).

Some would state for emphasis that the Church will never approve homosexual relations. Fine. It will also never approve contraception, divorce, adultery, murder, stealing, lying (generally), abortion, etc. That doesn’t resolve much.

In this philosophy forum, I am asking whether this lack of freedom minimizes or eliminates culpability for sin, even though objectively the actions under consideration are considered grave matter?

I have read and know what the other paragraphs of the Catechism state. What I’m focusing on is, are the SSA-afflicted persons culpable for the corresponding acts of grave matter?

The Church considers SSA to be a “grave” disorder. There you go, Doesn’t a “grave” disorder nullify sinful culpability for engaging in SSA behavior under 1735? 1735 is very broad and even includes “other” conditions which compromise one’s freedom.

The responses to my OP seem to be written largely ignoring 1735 which is also part of the same deposit of faith, which all must accept. A previous post said that only mental illness would reduce culpability for sin, but that’s not what 1735 says. There are more conditions, including even habit, and social and psychological factors. I feel people are more contradicting 1735 than accepting what it says.

I have intrusive thoughts all the time it is the bane of my existence. I don’t act on them. Homosexuals can be celibate.

Habit makes you less culpable but whatever it is remains a sin.it might be venial and not mortal but it is still a sin

 

[cena]

I don’t want the discussion to get lost in wording about “every waking moment.” What I was referring to is someone 1) whose identity 24/7 involved SSA and 2) who might well have many temptations to sin in thought, word, and deed throughout the day.

1735 must be in the Catechism for a reason. Over and above the legalistic wording, after all, it must be in there because it reflects God’s mercy, as best as we understand it.

I’ve tried a dozen times in this forum to find somebody who agrees with it, that it might actually pertain to anything at all. There seems to be a definite bias against forgiving anybody who is afflicted with SSA, is all that I can say.

I am tempted almost every minute of every day to do things worse than homosexuality. My bias comes from the fact that I can choose not to act on them. Intrusive thoughts don’t take away your free will.

 

[dmar198]

I don’t want the discussion to get lost in wording about “every waking moment.” What I was referring to is someone 1) whose identity 24/7 involved SSA and 2) who might well have many temptations to sin in thought, word, and deed throughout the day.

If their freedom or knowledge is more diminished than it is in other people, then and only then can I see them being less culpable. Do you think there is evidence that people with SSA have less freedom or knowledge of the sinfulness of the action than other people?

1735 must be in the Catechism for a reason. Over and above the legalistic wording, after all, it must be in there because it reflects God’s mercy, as best as we understand it.

Yes, and I think it is trying to identify some things that can diminish a person’s freedom and therefore culpability for sin. But I wonder what evidence there is that same-sex attraction diminishes a person’s freedom more than opposite-sex attraction? Are you saying it does? Again, I ask because I don’t want to misunderstand you.

There seems to be a definite bias against forgiving anybody who is afflicted with SSA, is all that I can say.

I hope I don’t give that impression. I re-read my post and the part where I say “then and only then can I see them being less culpable” kind of sounds like I am biased against forgiving people with same-sex attraction. I hope that’s not the impression I give to other people, because I’m just trying to say that the Catechism seems to only excuse people from sin on the basis of lack of freedom relative to others and lack of knowledge relative to others. Therefore, if someone wants to argue that same-sex attraction limits culpability, it seems to me that it must either diminish your freedom more than opposite-sex attraction does or else limit your knowledge. To me, the latter seems more likely, at least on its surface.

 

[sirach2v4]

replying to post 15:

That’s exactly my point. a sin is NOT a sin, when 1735 applies. That’s exactly what 1735 is saying. (grave matter is still grave matter, but it may not be a sin, according to 1735)

On the cross, Jesus said, Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

See? The sin of the Romans and, as the case may be, certain Jews in getting Jesus put to death was negated by Christ, due to their ignorance.

 

[sirach2v4]

I have intrusive thoughts all the time it is the bane of my existence. I don’t act on them. Homosexuals can be celibate.

Habit makes you less culpable but whatever it is remains a sin.it might be venial and not mortal but it is still a sin

With all respect, 1735 says that the grave matter culpability may even be nullified, so sin may not necessarily remain.