My “point” is strictly based on and quoted from official and authoritative Church teaching and instruction:Thanks for the reply. Your point is taken though truley flawed.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.htmlLETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
For Catholics there is nothing “great” about rationalizing and promoting the point for illicit sexual activity and gravely sinful lifestyle choices. The entrance gate of personal daily discipleship to Jesus “that leads to life” is narrow. Are you impressed with the prospect of and price of admission for (“Enter by the narrow gate …”) spending eternity in union with God?This is a great point.
And, yet, no one can offer a valid rebuttal? The only person who attempted to used evidence (“homosexuals practices usually lead to disease and disfigurement”) that he cannot back up (he simply retorts “it’s a well-known medical fact”).For Catholics there is nothing “great” about rationalizing and promoting the point for illicit sexual activity and gravely sinful lifestyle choices.
And, yet, no one can offer a valid rebuttal? The only person who attempted to used evidence (“homosexuals practices usually lead to disease and disfigurement”) that he cannot back up (he simply retorts “it’s a well-known medical fact”).
I am speaking from the Catholic point of view to a fellow forum member who identifies themself as a “Catholic” as the common denominator for having a rational discussion. Your obviously other reference point (Religion = “NA”) is not my target audience.
The Catholic position is flawed. It’s based on Natural Law theory, which is an inadequate and short-sighted ethical system.
By denying that SSA (same sex attraction) is a deviation from natural moral law and a symptom of an underlying psychological disorder, you can conveniently rationalize “this is how I am …how God made me”. This likewise provides one with the grossly flawed and distortion of truth basis for gravely sinful expression of an intrinsically disordered desire. There is not a “live happily ever after” story book ending to not taking up one’s cross and following Jesus Christ in faithful discipleship.To all of you - thanks. I see your points. I really do. But if you look at my condition as a “disorder” or a retardation of natural law maybe you can correlate me (though I do not) to a person born without legs or some other kind of disfugurement. They will live out their lives happily with their disfunction - not try to deny that it exists. Some seek therapy but in the end have to realize that (a) they are different and (b) they’re better off accepting it than than trying to change what they cannot.
Are you currently striving to live chastely and have you repented of and confessed your past sins of having sexual expression out side the sanctity of marriage?This is the best I can do for you. All I said is that I am happy with my homosexuality and for some reason I have really disrupted the beehive here. What sin have I committed?
God made no one with an intrinsically disordered desire whose only tendency is only toward moral disorder. This is a feature and consequence of original sin. However, we are not left to our own devises as Jesus Christ who by his life, death and resurrection has made all the provision needed to live a holy and virtuous life rewarded by life eternal in heaven … “if only we suffer with him that we may also be glorified with him”. (Romans 8: 16)To be happy with the way God made me, with the cross he handed me? Trust me, it is a cross! But as all crosses do, they help you see the world a little differently and teach you a lot about yourself. I love the way God made me.
No amount of CCC references are going to change that because there is nothing in there that says I cannot. If anything is unnatural, it is to dare suggest that I wallow in some kind of guilt or embarassment for who I am…that called “the closet.” That’s called, getting married and having kinds knowing that you have no attraction physically to your wife.
It sounds like you are shunning and refusing to take up your cross and follow after Jesus Christ in embracing a chaste lifestyle. The mantra “I gotta be me” is a counterfeit liberty when not based on the truth. You are not alone in not being perfect and suffering the consequences of original and actual sin. The remedy to “wallow in some kind of guilt or embarrassment” is conversion to Christ, i.e., to repent and believe and earnestly try by the grace of God to sin no more.Thanks, all. I do appreciate it.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there exists some genetic or hormonal trigger that acts as the root cause of a predominant attraction to members of one’s own gender. Let’s further assume, again, for the sake of argument, that it is this trigger that causes same-sex attractions in the vast majority of people who have this condition. It does not follow that this would be “the way God made” such individuals.Obviously, God has created the person as a homosexual. Therefore, God intends that the person be happy in the homosexual state.
This doesn’t mean that they should seek out sexual expression of that condition, but I really don’t see how the person has any other choice than to be happy with how God made them, and live with the situation as it is. Homosexuality is not exactly a curable condition.
This is physically impossible - God has not created them with this particular function. To ape it in pretense of heterosexual normality would be even worse than to live the celibate life.
Thanks all. I appreciate the talk.Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there exists some genetic or hormonal trigger that acts as the root cause of a predominant attraction to members of one’s own gender. Let’s further assume, again, for the sake of argument, that it is this trigger that causes same-sex attractions in the vast majority of people who have this condition. It does not follow that this would be “the way God made” such individuals.
As you point out in your numerous responses, there are many deformities that people can be born with. Of course, they are called deformities for a reason. People realize that this is not the way things are meant to be. They are encouraged to deal with these difficulties in the best manner that they can and the Christian faithful do what they can by providing assistance such as wheelchairs, insulin or other correctives. This never means that they should roll over and despair of a cure.
If one were to take your line of thought to its logical end, one would have to assume that as we were all born into Original Sin, that God meant for us to be created that way. You would have to say that God expects us to be happy with our fallen state and the subsequent loss of the Beatific Vision. You would have to deny the Resurrection, as there would be no point in it and that any attempt to save us from sin and eternal death would go against the will of God.
This pagan attitude denies the healing power of the Cross. When Christ walked the Earth, He did not tell the lame, the blind or the disfigured to simply accept their loathsome state in life. He cured them. In the end, He made the ultimate sacrifice to save us all from the state we were born into. Like the woman with the hemorrhage, the cure is present if you only reach out and touch the hem of Christ’s robe. The alternative is to hold back from Christ and wallow in your disfigurements.
As such, I cannot subscribe to your willful abandonment of Christ’s saving grace in preference to whatever sexual dysfunction you have convinced yourself you are happy with. You need prayers, brother.
Setter, thanks for trying to set me straight - no pun intended. I hosnestly see your points. In the end, there is no amount of talking that will change my mind as to how I feel about my sexuality. Thanks to all who commented!Thanks all. I appreciate the talk.
First of all, that is a ridiculous claim. I used to be as hardcore a Catholic as yourself. It is truth-seeking that brought me *out *of Catholicism. Do you really think it’s easy, dealing with the realization that everything you thought was true was wrong? I think I understand now, what Socrates felt like…You forgot the essential qualifier: “As seen from my point of view” which finds any system of morality that does not confirm your predetermined (i.e., not seeking the truth wherever it may lead) agenda (i.e., homosexual apologist) as “inadequate and short-sighted”.
Your profile indicates that you are Catholic. Why are you still Catholic if you know your church disagrees with you? You stae that you are an active homosexual and find nothing wrong with that - the Church teaches that those who engage in homosexual acts are in a state of mortal sin and if not contrite and reconciled with the Church about this, run the risk of losing their salvation. I find your arguments (and those who agree with you writing in this thread - you know who you are) very specious and not convincing at all - they come across as someone who desperately wants to validate and rationalize what they do to make them feel smug and secure in their convictions. In other words, you like what you do too much to give it up and are not willing to sacrifice it for Christ and His Church. That’s entirely up to you but please stop trying to convince devout Catholics of the merits of homosexual sex - believe me, you’re not going to change our minds and apparently we’re not going to change yours unless our prayers are efficacious. I’ll pray for you guys anyway. By the way, I too have read that long-term anal sex does cause not only the risk of rectal cancer but “leakage” from the rectum due to loss of spincter (sp?) strength - search it on the web if you don’t believe it but it’s out there.As some on the forum have so eloquently put it…prove it. I have NEVER heard of this before. I have many practicing “bottom” gay friends and NONE of them have ever heard of this. It sounds like you took it of of one of those 1950s Movie-tone News educational videos.
To all of you - thanks. I see your points. I really do. But if you look at my condition as a “disorder” or a retardation of natural law maybe you can correlate me (though I do not) to a person born without legs or some other kind of disfugurement. They will live out their lives happily with their disfunction - not try to deny that it exists. Some seek therapy but in the end have to realize that (a) they are different and (b) they’re better off accepting it than than trying to change what they cannot.
This is the best I can do for you. All I said is that I am happy with my homosexuality and for some reason I have really disrupted the beehive here. What sin have I committed? To be happy with the way God made me, with the cross he handed me? Trust me, it is a cross! But as all crosses do, they help you see the world a little differently and teach you a lot about yourself. I love the way God made me. No amount of CCC references are going to change that because there is nothing in there that says I cannot. If anything is unnatural, it is to dare suggest that I wallow in some kind of guilt or embarassment for who I am…that called “the closet.” That’s called, getting married and having kinds knowing that you have no attraction physically to your wife.
Thanks, all. I do appreciate it.
Let’s go through your objections one by one.
- The “Natural Law” argument is flawed on the basis that just because a human being’s disposition, trait, or body part is obviously ordered towards one thing, it doesn’t neccessarily mean that alterations to one’s “natural” disposition, transcendence beyond “normal” traits, or different uses for those body parts are immoral or wrong. For example, the nose is obviously *not *ordered towards holding up one’s glasses. But wearing glasses is not immoral. Furthermore, the mouth is obviously *not *ordered towards kissing . . .There are thousands of examples of human beings doing things beyond our original design that are not immoral . . .
- The Bible is not a reliable source for solid moral teachings. Perhaps if the Bible did not have God commanding the slaughter of hundreds of innocent human beings, including women and children . . . the Bible might be a reliable moral guide. However, with these and other glaring examples of the Biblical injustice I find it very difficult to accept arguments based on the authority of scripture.
- . . I don’t think “homosexuality is wrong because the Church is right about everything” is a respectable viewpoint. The morality of homosexuality ought to be determined true or false without invoking the authority of the church. The Church is right about a given moral statement because that moral statement can be objectively proven true, not because the Church said that it’s true. In class, for instance, the professor speaks the truth not because the professor speaks it, but because he or she can show that it’s true. He has evidence that validate his claims. Let us say that I disagree with my professor on a given issue. What if he responded: “I’m the professor! By virtue of my authority as a teacher, and because I only teach the truth, what I say must be true!” I think we’d probably laugh at him. When intelligently dealing with moral issues, we work with real evidence, not claims of authority.
Well, if what you are saying is true it’s really easy for you to take the spec out of my eye huh? Are you calling yourself Catholic? Have you ever mortal sinned? If so, drop it mister. I would also advise you to not predict where I am going. I also dont think you have read my whole thread in which you would better understand my arguement. Thanks for the chat though.Your profile indicates that you are Catholic. Why are you still Catholic if you know your church disagrees with you? You stae that you are an active homosexual and find nothing wrong with that - the Church teaches that those who engage in homosexual acts are in a state of mortal sin and if not contrite and reconciled with the Church about this, run the risk of losing their salvation. I find your arguments (and those who agree with you writing in this thread - you know who you are) very specious and not convincing at all - they come across as someone who desperately wants to validate and rationalize what they do to make them feel smug and secure in their convictions. In other words, you like what you do too much to give it up and are not willing to sacrifice it for Christ and His Church. That’s entirely up to you but please stop trying to convince devout Catholics of the merits of homosexual sex - believe me, you’re not going to change our minds and apparently we’re not going to change yours unless our prayers are efficacious. I’ll pray for you guys anyway. By the way, I too have read that long-term anal sex does cause not only the risk of rectal cancer but “leakage” from the rectum due to loss of spincter (sp?) strength - search it on the web if you don’t believe it but it’s out there.
Are you saying that when two men have sex, because they cannot reproduce, that the whole act is out of hedonism? Do we really throw the baby out with the bath water? I guess if a man who “shoots blanks” thus cannot conceive with his wife is also having sex with her out of pure hedonism? Should he throw in the towel and become single and celibate?Let’s go through your objections one by one.
In the first, you claim that Natural law is flawed because human beings have found other uses for their body parts other than those for which they were designed. Ok, fine. Let’s examine the examples you provide, namely the wearing of glasses on the end of one’s nose and kissing.
Arguing from a strict design perspective you are correct that neither of these things follows from either the design of the nose or the mouth. What you fail to consider are the ends that are meant to be achieved by these activities. In the case of glasses, one attempts to correct an impairment. The end to be achieved is, in and of itself, good and acceptable. In the case of kissing, then end to be achieved is one of expressing affection. Neither of these activities directly contradicts the designed purpose of either the mouth or the nose.
Turning to the use of one’s sexual organs with a member of the same sex, we ask ourselves the same question; what is the end to be achieved? Here, the end is one of hedonistic self-satisfaction. It is to use the body of another person for one’s own orgasm in a manner that directly frustrates the original purpose of the act, reproduction. Thus, it is an evil application of the use of one’s body and an inherently selfish one at that.
Turning towards Scripture, you point out that there are many passages that, on the surface, tend to be contradictory. Certainly the wealth of strains of Christianity testify to the various ways in which the same scriptures could be interpreted. You might even have a point if this was a Sola Scriptura forum but, being that it is not and us Catholics happen to have a Magisterium endowed with the authority to inerrantly tell us what Scripture means, not only do you have to contend with the Scriptural condemnations, you have to grapple with the Church’s teaching authority.
It is gratifying, at least, that you attempt to do this in your last point. In comparing the Church’s authority to teach to that of a college professor, you are comparing two very different things. In the case of the latter, it can be readily demonstrated that the professor must, in order to teach, refer to something outside of himself that can be objectively verified. That religion is something that can be empirically verified is a fallacy. We might, as C.S. Lewis did, be able to derive certain moral absolutes, but if we systematically follow those truths and the consequences of them, we arrive right back at the Church and her authority to teach. Therefore, I find the claim of submission to the Church’s authority far more respectable than any type of morally relativistic scheme which would essentially claim the infallibility of the Magisterium for ourselves.
If a man discovers his sterility before marriage he may do very well to consider a life of celibacy. If, however, he discovers this fact after having committed himself to another through matrimony, his sexual act is not the same as the sexual act of two people, of whatever gender, who deliberately make a choice to sterilize the fruitfulness of that act.Are you saying that when two men have sex, because they cannot reproduce, that the whole act is out of hedonism? Do we really throw the baby out with the bath water? I guess if a man who “shoots blanks” thus cannot conceive with his wife is also having sex with her out of pure hedonism? Should he throw in the towel and become single and celibate?
Good question and this brings up another point, one that maybe I should start another thread on, actually. IIRC, the Church allows couples to marry if one or the other is sterile but if the man is paralyzed and can not have sexual intercourse, teachings say that they can not be married in a Catholic church since they can not have a sacramental marriage.Are you saying that when two men have sex, because they cannot reproduce, that the whole act is out of hedonism? Do we really throw the baby out with the bath water? I guess if a man who “shoots blanks” thus cannot conceive with his wife is also having sex with her out of pure hedonism? Should he throw in the towel and become single and celibate?
St. Paul said in Colossians 1- 24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is the Church. St. Paul’s statement indicates that all belong to the Body of the Church - Christ, we offer our suffering, with Christ sufferings and afflictions for the sins of the world. We as Catholic’s must love those that suffer with homosexual afflictions, we must suffer in charity with their state of life, and they must offer up a life of Chasity, to complete what was lacking in Christ’s afflictions so we can all become one in Christ.Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there exists some genetic or hormonal trigger that acts as the root cause of a predominant attraction to members of one’s own gender. Let’s further assume, again, for the sake of argument, that it is this trigger that causes same-sex attractions in the vast majority of people who have this condition. It does not follow that this would be “the way God made” such individuals.
As you point out in your numerous responses, there are many deformities that people can be born with. Of course, they are called deformities for a reason. People realize that this is not the way things are meant to be. They are encouraged to deal with these difficulties in the best manner that they can and the Christian faithful do what they can by providing assistance such as wheelchairs, insulin or other correctives. This never means that they should roll over and despair of a cure.
If one were to take your line of thought to its logical end, one would have to assume that as we were all born into Original Sin, that God meant for us to be created that way. You would have to say that God expects us to be happy with our fallen state and the subsequent loss of the Beatific Vision. You would have to deny the Resurrection, as there would be no point in it and that any attempt to save us from sin and eternal death would go against the will of God.
This pagan attitude denies the healing power of the Cross. When Christ walked the Earth, He did not tell the lame, the blind or the disfigured to simply accept their loathsome state in life. He cured them. In the end, He made the ultimate sacrifice to save us all from the state we were born into. Like the woman with the hemorrhage, the cure is present if you only reach out and touch the hem of Christ’s robe. The alternative is to hold back from Christ and wallow in your disfigurements.
As such, I cannot subscribe to your willful abandonment of Christ’s saving grace in preference to whatever sexual dysfunction you have convinced yourself you are happy with. You need prayers, brother.
Canon 1084 Annotated: 2) From a juridical perspective, impotence is the inability to copulate, that is, to have sexual intercourse with all its essential elements, exactly as they are determined by nature. The term sterility refers to those defects which prevent procreation but do not effect the act of copulation. The Church, in its wisdom, confers that although one may be sterile, the act of copulation between a man and his wife are fulfilled. Many, many times in the Bible, woman conceived when it was not possible. I cannot recall one reference when a man conceived.Good question and this brings up another point, one that maybe I should start another thread on, actually. IIRC, the Church allows couples to marry if one or the other is sterile but if the man is paralyzed and can not have sexual intercourse, teachings say that they can not be married in a Catholic church since they can not have a sacramental marriage.
.And, yet, no one can offer a valid rebuttal? The only person who attempted to used evidence ("homosexuals practices usually lead to disease and disfigurement") that he cannot back up (he simply retorts “it’s a well-known medical fact”).
The Catholic position is flawed. It’s based on Natural Law theory, which is an inadequate and short-sighted ethical system.
They deny marriage to loving couples when the man is unable to have intercourse.Canon 1084 Annotated: 2) From a juridical perspective, impotence is the inability to copulate, that is, to have sexual intercourse with all its essential elements, exactly as they are determined by nature. The term sterility refers to those defects which prevent procreation but do not effect the act of copulation. The Church, in its wisdom, confers that although one may be sterile, the act of copulation between a man and his wife are fulfilled. Many, many times in the Bible, woman conceived when it was not possible. I cannot recall one reference when a man conceived.
Canon annotations to Canon 1055:They deny marriage to loving couples when the man is unable to have intercourse.