Can homosexuality not be a sin if

[YinYangMom]

Asking:

What about homosexuals who pretend to be straight, and get married and have children?

Is that a sin? a valid good option?

Any couple who marries in the Church under false pretenses sins.

Based on your example I’m thinking of several scenarios:

A homosexual male marrying a heterosexual woman, having children with her.

or

A homosexual female marrying a heterosexual male, having children with him.

Now…

if both situations were such that the homosexual person in the relationship was truly trying to overcome the temptations of their disposition by entering into this marriage with this other person…that the heterosexual partner was helping this person carry their cross, then the marriage is valid and it is full of grace.

if **both **situations were such that the homosexual person continues to think and act upon their homosexual tendencies throughout the marriage to the straight person then it is a sin on that partner’s part. A particularly grave sin if the person doesn’t even let the spouse know about their condition, etc.

Acting upon one’s sexual desires or directing one’s sexual desires toward someone you are not married to is a sin of adultery - straight or gay.

As for your ‘better to marry than burn’ statement, a lie is a lie is a lie. God knows the person’s heart. If the person is ‘pretending’ to everyone - including God and him/herself, then they still ‘burn’, according to your scenario.

In actuality, though, ‘burning’ isn’t a necessary outcome here. God is merciful and longs for all people to turn to him for help and grace.

 

[buffalo]

Asking:

Buffalo, why would you say it is a lie? Because there is no real love (at lest at the moment when they get married)?
In the past and in many cultures marriage used to be arranged, and that was often the situation.

Better to marry than burn.

BJ, If they are born that way, then, bad luck, I feel bad for them, but that doesnt threaten the unchanged position of the church on homosexuality at all.
People are also born blind, with severe problems, and didnt jesus talk about those who were born eunuchs?

It has to do with honesty. Partners mutually give of each other. The homosexual would be living a lie that would hinder the ability to become one flesh, with reaching effects to the spouse and children. That does not mean a marriage should not take place, it means the struggle should be known and understood clearly by the spouse to be.

From the Cathechism:
[1626](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1626.htm’) The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.

1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two "becoming one flesh."129

[1628](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1628.htm’) The consent must be an act of the will of each of the contracting parties, free of coercion or **grave external fear.**130 No human power can substitute for this consent.131 If this freedom is lacking the marriage is invalid.

1629 For this reason (or for other reasons that render the marriage null and void) the Church, after an examination of the situation by the competent ecclesiastical tribunal, can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed.132 In this case the contracting parties are free to marry, provided the natural obligations of a previous union are discharged.133

1630 The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. The presence of the Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.

[1631](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1631.htm’) This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:134

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
• Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

[1632](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1632.htm’) So that the “I do” of the spouses may be a free and responsible act and so that the marriage covenant may have solid and lasting human and Christian foundations, preparation for marriage is of prime importance.

The example and teaching given by parents and families remain the special form of this preparation. The role of pastors and of the Christian community as the “family of God” is indispensable for the transmission of the human and Christian values of marriage and family,135 and much more so in our era when many young people experience broken homes which no longer sufficiently assure this initiation:

It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love, its role and its exercise, so that, having learned the value of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon a marriage of their own.136

 

[bjcros87]

Asking:

BJ, If they are born that way, then, bad luck, I feel bad for them, but that doesnt threaten the unchanged position of the church on homosexuality at all.
People are also born blind, with severe problems, and didnt jesus talk about those who were born eunuchs?

I didn’t say that it changed the position on homosexuality. I know that it is a sin. I don’t recall people being born eunuchs. However, those things are not sins. So it is comparing two different things.

 

[javelin]

bjcros87:

I don’t see that as a sin. However, if people really are born gay then that means God created them to be that way. So they should do what they were created to do.(Not really they aren’t created that way and they should still not sin.) Going against God is sin. So the way I see it homosexuals are in a lose-lose situation. If they aren’t the way God created them to be they are sinning, but if they act on that they are sinning aswell. Note God doesn’t want people to sin, he doesn’t create us to sin. We sin as a part of our choice.

This is the kind of misunderstanding that gets many in trouble. Whether or not someone is born with homosexual inclinations has NO BEARING on the sinfulness of homosexual actions. We are all born with the inclination towards many different sins because of Adam’s fall. Remember, having homosexual attractions is NOT sinful in and of itself (when innocent and not lustful). How we handle those inclinations is where sin comes in. People can choose to engage in a homosexual relationship or not – and in so choosing are either sinning or not.

So they are not in a lose-lose situation. They are simply called to the celibate life unless they find a calling to holy marriage – just like everyone else.

Peace,
javelin