Are romantic homosexual relationships moral or immoral?

[RCIA4]

We need to refrain from speaking accurately because it offends certain people?

What are you saying is that certain people object to REALITY – and it is the obligation of EVERYONE ELSE to accommodate those people.

Frankly, that is simply insane. I will not accept that. I will continue to use the ecclesiastically correct language to discuss the appropriate concepts.

As for “mean spirited,” I am not speaking from a place of malevolence but of simple deference to the appropriate usage of the English language. Please do not accuse me of malevolence in the future.

I never accused of speaking in malevolence. I just asked you to refrain from using the words

And yes it is your job to accommodate homosexuals… The Catechism says “They must be accepted with respect, sensitivity, and compassion.”

So therefore you must accommodate… If you must use it in its definition fine…

But don’t casually use it to refer to homosexuals are sodomites…

Use homosexuals or same-sex attraction instead

 

[RCIA4]

And I do apologize for getting out of hand… I work with these people everyday… I see their struggles and triumphs, they’'re heartbreaks and so on…

I have a heart for these people you need to understand that…

 

[Marybeloved]

The church teaches that the homosexual inclination, though often involuntary, is nevertheless objectively disordered- something that must be struggled against, kinda like a strong temptation. So I imagine that any kind of romantic involvement would definitely be sinful. Think of it this way: A married man has a romantic involvement with a woman not his wife and they are dating- Do you really think the wife would think it was cool if the husband said to her: Honey, it was just romance, there’s no sex…? That’s exactly the same thing here- If the sexual involvement is wrong, then encouraging sexual interest (whether/not it’s acted upon) is also wrong. Romance has no point between persons who cannot be together, and indeed when they cannot be together morally speaking, then romance really becomes not just pointless but dangerous also, and even sinful.

Also, the church seems to discourage such romantic involvements when she advises dis-interested friendships when it comes to those with homosexual inclinations/orientation. See this section from the CCC (Catechism):

*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. *

 

[sw85]

I never accused of speaking in malevolence. I just asked you to refrain from using the words

And yes it is your job to accommodate homosexuals… The Catechism says “They must be accepted with respect, sensitivity, and compassion.”

So therefore you must accommodate… If you must use it in its definition fine…

But don’t casually use it to refer to homosexuals are sodomites…

Use homosexuals or same-sex attraction instead

Again, calling someone a homosexual tells us nothing. Homosexuality is not the sin in question. Sodomy is.

Hence using “sodomy” to refer to sexually active homosexuals is appropriate – and indeed preferable, since simply calling them “homosexuals” falsely assumes moral equivalency between those who have the inclination but live chastely with those who actively indulge their disordered passions.

This is NOT EVEN A QUESTION of “respect.” You CANNOT respect someone without acknowledging that they are a MORAL AGENT with FREE WILL. And that means being HONEST with them about the nature of reality and what it demands of them.

If someone felt disrespected because you said the sky is blue, would you say, “OK, it’s some kind of color, then”? No, because that person would be CRAZY. They would not be worth your time.

Likewise, if a sodomite objects to being called a sodomite, I’m not going to say, “OK, you’re a homosexual, then” BECAUSE THOSE WORDS MEAN QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT THINGS. There is no sin in being homosexual. There IS sin in practicing sodomy.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in that calling someone I’m trying to convert a sodomite is probably going to alienate them. Then, as a PRUDENTIAL matter, it is wise not to call them that. But we are not trying to convert sodomites here. We are talking about the nature of a particular sin – a sin that can ONLY be described using its proper historical name: SODOMY.

This is an absolutely insane, absurd discussion.

 

[michelleds]

And I do apologize for getting out of hand… I work with these people everyday… I see their struggles and triumphs, they’'re heartbreaks and so on…

I have a heart for these people you need to understand that…

Ironically enough, the two people (Dakota and myself) that you are chastising for using “sodomite” both identify, in one form or another, as homosexual. So, umm, we’re the they that you keep you talking about.

Since you are new around here, you can search both Dakota’s and my previous posts to kind our public statements on these issues; and I won’t presume to speak any further for Dakota. As for me, I identify as a “former lesbian”.

 

[Tenofovir]

Oh by the way, I am talking about homosexuals who date other homosexuals chastely.

I would say immoral. But I would not say that gay-gay friendships are immoral. That’s like saying all male-female friendships are immoral. That’s not the case at all.

 

[Marybeloved]

Ironically enough, the two people (Dakota and myself) that you are chastising for using “sodomite” both identify, in one form or another, as homosexual. So, umm, we’re the they that you keep you talking about.

Since you are new around here, you can search both Dakota’s and my previous posts to kind our public statements on these issues; and I won’t presume to speak any further for Dakota. As for me, I identify as a “former lesbian”.

Wow, Michelleds, That’s so brave of you, stepping away from something that can be very powerful. I pray that you can find fulfillment and true Christian joy in celibacy or a happy marriage (if that’s possible for you). Our Lord said that whatever you give up for him, you will receive a hundred-fold, both in this world and the next. Peace and joy.

 

[michelleds]

Wow, Michelleds, That’s so brave of you, stepping away from something that can be very powerful. I hope you can find fulfillment and true Christian joy in celibacy or a happy marriage (if that’s possible for you).

Peace and joy.

Thank you, Marybeloved, but it’s all the Grace of God. I’m just a broken vessel praying that God will use me in whatever way He sees fit.

 

[maplebug55]

i don’t have a problem with it until they engage in physical relations. THEN it is immoral.

 

[CountrySteve]

Again, calling someone a homosexual tells us nothing. Homosexuality is not the sin in question. Sodomy is.

Hence using “sodomy” to refer to sexually active homosexuals is appropriate – and indeed preferable, since simply calling them “homosexuals” falsely assumes moral equivalency between those who have the inclination but live chastely with those who actively indulge their disordered passions.

This is NOT EVEN A QUESTION of “respect.” You CANNOT respect someone without acknowledging that they are a MORAL AGENT with FREE WILL. And that means being HONEST with them about the nature of reality and what it demands of them.

If someone felt disrespected because you said the sky is blue, would you say, “OK, it’s some kind of color, then”? No, because that person would be CRAZY. They would not be worth your time.

Likewise, if a sodomite objects to being called a sodomite, I’m not going to say, “OK, you’re a homosexual, then” BECAUSE THOSE WORDS MEAN QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT THINGS. There is no sin in being homosexual. There IS sin in practicing sodomy.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in that calling someone I’m trying to convert a sodomite is probably going to alienate them. Then, as a PRUDENTIAL matter, it is wise not to call them that. But we are not trying to convert sodomites here. We are talking about the nature of a particular sin – a sin that can ONLY be described using its proper historical name: SODOMY.

This is an absolutely insane, absurd discussion.

off topic, but ain’t it are job to convert sinners? just saying. God bless

 

[RCIA4]

Again, calling someone a homosexual tells us nothing. Homosexuality is not the sin in question. Sodomy is.

Hence using “sodomy” to refer to sexually active homosexuals is appropriate – and indeed preferable, since simply calling them “homosexuals” falsely assumes moral equivalency between those who have the inclination but live chastely with those who actively indulge their disordered passions.

This is NOT EVEN A QUESTION of “respect.” You CANNOT respect someone without acknowledging that they are a MORAL AGENT with FREE WILL. And that means being HONEST with them about the nature of reality and what it demands of them.

If someone felt disrespected because you said the sky is blue, would you say, “OK, it’s some kind of color, then”? No, because that person would be CRAZY. They would not be worth your time.

Likewise, if a sodomite objects to being called a sodomite, I’m not going to say, “OK, you’re a homosexual, then” BECAUSE THOSE WORDS MEAN QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT THINGS. There is no sin in being homosexual. There IS sin in practicing sodomy.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in that calling someone I’m trying to convert a sodomite is probably going to alienate them. Then, as a PRUDENTIAL matter, it is wise not to call them that. But we are not trying to convert sodomites here. We are talking about the nature of a particular sin – a sin that can ONLY be described using its proper historical name: SODOMY.

This is an absolutely insane, absurd discussion.

Well at least we agree on one point… And I think still think your wrong But in the interest of charity I won’t push it anymore… Let’s end the fighting SW

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Huh? I think you are being sarcastic here but in a way it seems that you are saying I am being immoral by using the word “romantic” about homosexuals.

I thought I already did but maybe I didn’t. Anyway, here you go. When I say romantic, I mean love. Let me just rephrase my question that was in my original post and see if that helps:

Are chaste homosexual dating relationships immoral?

So, basically what I am asking is: Is it immoral for two people of the same sex to date each other since they can never marry each other?

Does that clear things up? If not, let me know and I’ll try again.

define “dating”, for most people dating basically means courtship which if you can’t marry is at best futile. Now if you mean dating as in seeing a movie together, going out for dinner or drinks then I can’t see why it would be immoral.

Dakota Roberts -

Glad to see you’re not taking anything personally - Quote “I hate John Boswell…a sodomite who sodomized history…” Hmmm…calling him a sodomite means what exactly? Anything he has to say is completely null and void? I am aware that his work has its detractors, but I think that is probably true of most controversial subjects. (every single concept in his books are lies?)

It is hard to know where the truth is when the Western world has demonized homosexuality for centuries (punishment seems to have been much worse for this when compared to punishments for other offenses) and so many people lied about being homosexual, contributions of kniown homosexuals has been completely ignored in history classes etc.

His books are bastardizations of language and history

Please refrain from using the word sodomite… It’s mean…

I apologize, I went into a tirade

“sodomite” is not a mean word. that’s just silly. a sodomite is one who practices sodomy. Sodomy is often thought of as only anal sex, but it can also mean oral sex (see criminal statutes defining sodomy for the purpose of prosecuting forced sodomy as being oral or anal contact with genitals). it can also mean copulation between two persons of the same sex.

a person who openly admits to being a sexually active homosexual, is by definition, a sodomite. (as is the case with the person to whom Dakota referred.)

sodomia perfecta (homosexual) is however worse than sodomia imperfecta (heterosexual). Sodomia imperfecta is quite simply any heterosexual non-vaginal intercourse whereas sodomia imperfecta is between members of the same sex (it was thought that any man could be guilty of it and no one carried about women since they didn’t understand what they could possibly do). So yes, if some is a sexually active homosexual they are by definition a sodomite, but this doesn’t change the fact that it carries a lot of emotion baggage (much like calling a woman a whore).

I work in my Catholic university’s outreach program to people who are homosexual…

Sodomite is offensive according to our priest who runs the program… You will get no where with a gay man by calling him a sodomite Michelle…

It hurts peoples feelings… When we try to win gay people over to celibacy we follow the three golden rules from the Catechism “respect, sensitivity, and compassion.”

Don’t use the word… If your trying to win a sexually active gay man or lesbian woman over don’t call them a sodomite… It’s offensive, mean spirited and hurtful

Boswell has been dead for 17 years now

Michelleds -

There isn’t much point to discuss things if we only talk with people we agree with. If that is an agenda so be it. I comment on things that interest me.

You have zeroed in on places of disagreement, perhaps, mostly I think I asked questions or brought up alternate points of view. What if no one ever challenged the idea that “woman are supposed to remain silent in the assembly,(with their heads covered no less)”? You and I would not be speaking now. History is a testament to the fact that for century upon century most women in most places had less (or no ) rights and less value than a male infant! This and the charging of interest you completely ignore. (point being, again, like it or not, admit it or not, things CHANGE.) — I’m sure someone said there would never be altar girls either!

As to the term “sodomite”, yes, it means everything you say, but look at the context of how it was phrased. There is no doubt that it was a term of derision. A neutral term is simply ‘homosexual.’

Man, I wish people got as worked up about social justice (1% of the people having 99% of the money) as they do about this topic!

Yes, before Christianity came women were regarded as burdens, indeed frequently the Romans exposed female infants (left them to die), but once Christianity came it changed that, indeed if you look at medieval cathedrals you will notice there is actually a substantial amount of iconography involving women, the Blessed Mother is after all the most perfect human.

If there were enough altar boys there would be no need of altar girls.Women having their head covered in church harms no one, indeed many who do so say they have been treated better for it.

Boswell mostly makes me sad. Boswell converted to Catholicism at age 16 and attended Mass daily so I find it highly unlikely that he didn’t know what he was doing was wrong.
Here is an excellent review of his book by Robin Darling Young (Associate Professor of Theology at University of Notre Dame),

 

[RCIA4]

My head is still spinning from the sodomite argument with Sw85 lol …

Let’s avoid picking fights over vocabulary from now on Dakota lol…

 

[thistle]

Again,** calling someone a homosexual tells us nothing. **Homosexuality is not the sin in question. Sodomy is.

Hence using “sodomy” to refer to sexually active homosexuals is appropriate – and indeed preferable, since simply calling them “homosexuals” falsely assumes moral equivalency between those who have the inclination but live chastely with those who actively indulge their disordered passions.

This is NOT EVEN A QUESTION of “respect.” You CANNOT respect someone without acknowledging that they are a MORAL AGENT with FREE WILL. And that means being HONEST with them about the nature of reality and what it demands of them.

If someone felt disrespected because you said the sky is blue, would you say, “OK, it’s some kind of color, then”? No, because that person would be CRAZY. They would not be worth your time.

Likewise, if a sodomite objects to being called a sodomite, I’m not going to say, “OK, you’re a homosexual, then” BECAUSE THOSE WORDS MEAN QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT THINGS. There is no sin in being homosexual. There IS sin in practicing sodomy.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in that calling someone I’m trying to convert a sodomite is probably going to alienate them. Then, as a PRUDENTIAL matter, it is wise not to call them that. But we are not trying to convert sodomites here. We are talking about the nature of a particular sin – a sin that can ONLY be described using its proper historical name: SODOMY.

This is an absolutely insane, absurd discussion.

Actually it tells us everything.
The Church definition of homosexual means persons of the same sex having a sexual relationship.
Without the sexual relationship the Church defines it as same sex attraction/inclination/tendency.

Homosexuality (sexual relationships) = gravely disordered and a sin of grave matter
Same sex attraction (no sexual relationship) = disordered but not a sin

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

My head is still spinning from the sodomite argument with Sw85 lol …

Let’s avoid picking fights over vocabulary from now on Dakota lol…

To talk about Boswell is to argue about vocabulary, he translated brother as gay lover! To which my response is that it is morally permissible to burn willful heretics at the stake…

 

[sw85]

off topic, but ain’t it are job to convert sinners? just saying. God bless

Yes, but my point was that’s not what we are doing in this conversation, so there’s no reason to avoid using certain language.

Actually it tells us everything.
The Church definition of homosexual means persons of the same sex having a sexual relationship.
Without the sexual relationship the Church defines it as same sex attraction/inclination/tendency.

Homosexuality (sexual relationships) = gravely disordered and a sin of grave matter
Same sex attraction (no sexual relationship) = disordered but not a sin

The language in the Catechism strikes me as confused. For instance, in CCC 2357, it is said that “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” The usage here is clearly such that homosexuality refers to the act.

The following two paragraphs however refer at once to “homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual persons,” with the latter being “called to chastity.” The confusion is such that it is not clear what is meant by “homosexual persons”: those who experience the “tendency” or those who practice the “relations.”

This is why I simply use “homosexual” to denote those with the attraction and “sodomite,” the historical norm, to refer to those who act on the attraction. The former implies no sin, the latter does.

 

[michelleds]

Yes, but my point was that’s not what we are doing in this conversation, so there’s no reason to avoid using certain language.

The language in the Catechism strikes me as confused. For instance, in CCC 2357, it is said that “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” The usage here is clearly such that homosexuality refers to the act.

The following two paragraphs however refer at once to “homosexual tendencies” and “homosexual persons,” with the latter being “called to chastity.” The confusion is such that it is not clear what is meant by “homosexual persons”: those who experience the “tendency” or those who practice the “relations.”

This is why I simply use “homosexual” to denote those with the attraction and “sodomite,” the historical norm, to refer to those who act on the attraction. The former implies no sin, the latter does.

Also there was a thread recently that went on for several pages wherein several young men were identifying themselves as homosexual or gay but were also chaste in accordance with Catholic teaching. there was not a clear winner in that debate (which was whether or not a person should self-identify as homosexual or gay if in fact they were not and did not intend to be sexualy active), but suffice it to say that at least “sodomite” has the clear benefit of meaning an active homosexual.

 

[Jaroslaw]

reply to Dakota #48

I read the essay you suggested by Robin Darling and I have to wonder if you read John Boswell’s book? I have noticed that several people have mentioned the number and nature of the posts I have made - seems like pointing out I might have an “agenda” is an agenda in itself, rather why not let what I say rest on its own merits or lack thereof? In any event, if you have followed my other posts, I pointed out that people, myself included, tend to believe sources which confirm what they already believe. Since I do not read any ancient languages, and I’m guessing most if not all of the people commenting here don’t either, we must rely on other sources.

** I just thought about a book called Homosexuality and the politics of truth by Jeffrey Satinower. He starts out rather kind and then becomes completely anti-homo, which is fine except I got some of the books he cited as references and he totally misquoted, misconstrued etc… So shoddy research works both ways. Just wanted to point that out.

It seems rather self evident to me that if homosexuality has encountered any kind of the negativism in the past like it has encountered on these webpages (despite Catholic teaching that affirms the dignity of homosexual persons -who live a chaste life etc) then I am definitely skeptical of the assertions by writers here that all pro-homosexual current and ex or current Catholic Churchmen who are authors are misled or (implied) just plain liars. For example, in a debate I bowed out of, a person stated (approximately) that “murderers, adulterers and other sinners do not march for their rights and societal financial benefits as homosexuals do.” They also stated “homosexuals campaigned to get homosexuality removed as a listed mental illness.” And finally, homosexuals raising children is of “grave consequence” for society.

The first statement about marching for rights/benefits completely ignores the fact that we live in a pluralistic society. (which I might add, speaking fo the US, has been mightily anti-Catholic at various times) The Catholic Church is free and obligated to teach what it feels is the truth, but obviously other citizens do not feel being homosexual is a sin. To ask for the same benefits (Gays pay taxes too you know) is hardly some vile thing. To me, it is plainly insulting to compare murderers to homosexuals and even though it was not intended in a malicious way, it is the result just the same. While we’re at it, why so many Catholic monetary contributions to defeat same sex marriage and no initiative to outlaw divorce (or birth control)? Perhaps, the Gays are an easier target? Second, I happen to know a lot about the mental illness business - the only reason it was on the diagnostic list to begin with is because wealthy Gay men and women, who wanted to conform to societal norms went to psychiatrists for treatement to become straight. I have read the studies which conclude on this basis that Gays are ill. Except the only problem is the doctors were ONLY seeing the people that had already concluded on their own they had a problem! And why wouldn’t they? It wasn’t that many decades ago, homosexual activity was illegal, names were printed in the paper and Gays were evicted from their homes and lost their jobs, completely cut off from their families. I would say that intense level of persecution caused the mental problems, not being Gay by itself, wouldn’t you? All the studies I’m aware of show children raised in qualified Gay homes are turning out just fine. I also know a lot of people who work for protective services and believe me, Gays who want kids jump through lots of hoops to qualify to get them rather than “oops I’m pregnant” after a drunken party. Did you know there are 50,000 unwed births in my midwest state ANNUALLY? Yes, 50,0000. What is the Church doing or saying about that? No one has suggested unwed mothers get cut off welfare. THAT has HUGE consequences for society as well. Far more than a handful of homos, I might add.

Jesus himself stated that divorce was allowed in Moses’ time due to the “hardness of your hearts” but it was not so from the beginning. Interesting change, I think. Didn’t the Church apologize to the Jews for encouraging anti-semitism not too long ago? So the Church is capable of change, Vatican II was a pretty huge one. And of course, various people were stoned, usually the female party to the sin, not the male, which we don’t do anymore either. A non virginal bridel was returned to her parents (to be killed?) and children who talked back were supposed to be killed too? There is much more to say, but room doesn’t permit.

I keep hearing how the doctrine of homosexuality was settled 2000 years ago, and the centuries of prejudice and persecution apparently is just conveniently swept under the carpet. It took the Church 1975 years to say anything positive in affirming their dignjity as persons? What about the current Pope’s statement that says something like “virulently proactive homosexuals should not be surprised if violence against them increases?” Sorry again if I’m skeptical, about all the so-called objective sources of why homosexuality is against natural law etc. Blessings and peace even though we disagree.

 

[michelleds]

Jaroslaw, if you would kindly use the search feature on this forum, you would find a plethora of threads re homosexuality, SSM, and adoption of children by homosexuals. In the last 6 months alone we’ve addressed every single one of your concerns in another thread. Please forgive those of us who are weary of arguing the same points over and over again with people who refuse to read what’s already been said.

You’ll even find, again using the search feature, that many of the CAF regulars either identify as chaste gay, former gay, or have close family members who are gay (active, chaste, or former).

Just to sum up:

1. having homosexual attractions is not a sin
2. acting out homosexual sex acts is a sin
3. homosexuality is contrary to Natural Law and is gravely disordered
4. “Natural Law” is a term of art from the world of philosophy and theology and has nothing to do whether some behavior occurs in the natural world which is zoology.
5. homosexual sex acts are always closed to life
6. the divorce rate actually has no impact on the Church’s teaching in re homosexuality
7. given the first 5 above, SSM and SS adoption cannot be approved

 

[michelleds]

What about the current Pope’s statement that says something like “virulently proactive homosexuals should not be surprised if violence against them increases?”

Citation?