Cardinal: Gays "will never enter the Reign of God"

[BobObob]

Love and respect must mean that we will provide those who obstinately persist in their same-sex attractions the truth: they are eternally imperiling their souls. Hatred and disdain would mean ignoring this grave obligation and losing to Hell those souls that could have been saved but for our admonition.

This would be correct if it was true that the mere experience of same-sex attraction is a sin. However, in posts 50, 60, 61, and 64, I believe I reasonably showed that the mere experience of same-sex attraction is not a sin, and that the Catholic Church agrees with me.

If you don’t mind, I would like to ask you the following questions (if you don’t mind answering them):

Do you personally know anyone who has SSA or considers themselves “homosexual”, “bisexual”, or “gay”? If so, how do you treat them? If not, how do you think you would treat them?

Would you be willing to enter into an emotionally close, non-erotic (nor romantic), friendship with someone who you knew had SSA if it might help them get rid of their SSA?

I someone who has SSA was doing everything they can to get rid of their SSA, but died before they completely got rid of SSA (still had some SSA), do you think that that partial SSA would keep them from going to heaven? What if they died right after they tried to get rid of their SSA, but had not gotten rid of any of it (but was willing to do whatever they could)? What if they did everything they knew how to to get rid of SSA, but they lived in extreme poverty and did not have the resources (knowledge, therapist, etc.) to change their SSA, and died with having SSA?

Is your view that even experiencing SSA is sinful mostly arise out of your understanding of “chastity” and “appetite”? If not, then from where does it fundamentally come from?

If you posted what you did above truly out of love and good will, then I can respect that (although I think you are mistaken in this regard). Partially why I asked these things is because I want to understand you personally and your views better.

 

[Other_Eric]

This would be correct if it was true that the mere experience of same-sex attraction is a sin. However, in posts 50, 60, 61, and 64, I believe I reasonably showed that the mere experience of same-sex attraction is not a sin, and that the Catholic Church agrees with me.

I someone who has SSA was doing everything they can to get rid of their SSA, but died before they completely got rid of SSA (still had some SSA), do you think that that partial SSA would keep them from going to heaven? What if they died right after they tried to get rid of their SSA, but had not gotten rid of any of it (but was willing to do whatever they could)? What if they did everything they knew how to to get rid of SSA, but they lived in extreme poverty and did not have the resources (knowledge, therapist, etc.) to change their SSA, and died with having SSA?

Is your view that even experiencing SSA is sinful mostly arise out of your understanding of “chastity” and “appetite”? If not, then from where does it fundamentally come from?

While I appreciate your desire to get to know me personally and thereby come to better understand my position on this matter, I nevertheless resist the temptation to make the discussion of this matter a personal one. While I was aware of your responses to me in posts [60](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6013464&postcount=60), [61](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6013466&postcount=61) and [64](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6013794&postcount=64) (I omit post [50](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6011422&postcount=50) only for having [responded to it ](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6012757&postcount=53)already), personal circumstances regrettably delayed my participation in this thread. Should you feel it necessary that I respond to those posts specifically, I am happy to oblige, but for now I hope you will be satisfied with my reply to your latest post here.

To your first question, I respond that personally knowing someone who experiences same-sex attraction is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the moral content of the man’s experience unless you would like to articulate a post-modern, subjective morality. Further, it is disturbing instance of moral equivalence since we would not ask the same about a hypothetical acquaintance with murderers, pedophiles or any other such similar deviants.

Should the Christian actively seek out the acquaintance of those who experience same-sex attraction? I am not completely sure, although I can think of a few good reasons to avoid it unless that Christian has a firm grounding in theology, psychology and martial arts. If this particular Christian happens to be a parent, then I would think that the answer would obviously be that men and women with same-sex attractions are exactly the sort of people it would be prudent to avoid.

I imagine that the interaction involved in such a relationship, if it must occur, would be one that respects the dignity of the same-sex attracted individual enough to admonish him to reform. Either the individual will accept the correction, in which case you may very well have been instrumental in saving his soul, or he will reject it, in which case we shake the dust from our sandals and cease contact with him as Christ commanded.

As for entering into a relationship with such a person in order to help them achieve opposite-sex attraction, a Christian should never accept the implied responsibility for the moral progress of another. A same-sex attracted person’s journey back into the realm of sexual health is his and his alone. Consistent with Scripture, any orthodox Christian should formally reject any invitation to look past the log in his own eye and focus his attentions on the struggles of another. Let those with same-sex attraction tend to their own moral progress just as I attend to mine.

As for your questions regarding the eschatological fate of those who die still experiencing same-sex attraction, I reply that this condition, regardless of degree, most definitely imperils the soul. I do, however, concede that there exists the possibility of God transmitting extraordinary grace to such individuals in order to secure their salvation. This, however, is something that goes beyond what has been directly revealed to us and would constitute presumption if the individual relied on it to the detriment of his progress in therapy.

My conception of the sinful nature of the experience of same-sex attraction arises primarily from the threefold nature of mortal sin with the values of chastity and appetite merely being descriptive elements. To wit:

1. 
   *]The grave and serious matter prong is, as I’m sure you will agree, more than met.
   *]Full knowledge of the gravity of the offense is assumed since to do otherwise would contradict the human dignity of the individual.
   *]Allowing the condition to manifest itself either physically or abstractly requires passive consent, which is both complete and deliberate, in the presence of a therapeutic intervention, which would correct the errant appetite.
   
   To make an exception to this rule for the benefit of those with same-sex attraction is ultimately to rob such men and women of the possibility of being responsible, free, moral agents. Indeed, the appropriate response to all of your questions is one that involves telling those with same-sex attractions to grow up and stop looking for others to carry their crosses for them. There is no more loving thing that can be said to the individual with same-sex attractions than: “Be the man God created you to be or suffer the consequences.”

 

[BobObob]

To your first question, I respond that personally knowing someone who experiences same-sex attraction is irrelevant. It has no bearing on the moral content of the man’s experience unless you would like to articulate a post-modern, subjective morality. Further, it is disturbing instance of moral equivalence since we would not ask the same about a hypothetical acquaintance with murderers, pedophiles or any other such similar deviants.

The reason why I asked it is because it seemed that your position on the matter was in a large part based off of certain assertions that seemed to be assumptions about persons with SSA and the treatment of such persons. The most prominent of these seems to be that those who really try to do everything they can to get rid of their SSA necessarily will. If that were not the case, then merely having SSA may not necessarily be a sin. I wanted to know if you had some first hand experience, or if you were relying on other sources for your understanding of the psychology behind SSA.

I in no way deny the reality of objective moral truths.

I am not completely sure, although I can think of a few good reasons to avoid it unless that Christian has a firm grounding in theology, psychology and martial arts.

I am curious, why do you mention martial arts? To me, it seems to be unrelated to SSA.

Should the Christian actively seek out the acquaintance of those who experience same-sex attraction? I am not completely sure, although I can think of a few good reasons to avoid it unless that Christian has a firm grounding in theology, psychology and martial arts. If this particular Christian happens to be a parent, then I would think that the answer would obviously be that men and women with same-sex attractions are exactly the sort of people it would be prudent to avoid.

I imagine that the interaction involved in such a relationship, if it must occur, would be one that respects the dignity of the same-sex attracted individual enough to admonish him to reform. Either the individual will accept the correction, in which case you may very well have been instrumental in saving his soul, or he will reject it, in which case we shake the dust from our sandals and cease contact with him as Christ commanded.

As for entering into a relationship with such a person in order to help them achieve opposite-sex attraction, a Christian should never accept the implied responsibility for the moral progress of another. A same-sex attracted person’s journey back into the realm of sexual health is his and his alone. Consistent with Scripture, any orthodox Christian should formally reject any invitation to look past the log in his own eye and focus his attentions on the struggles of another. Let those with same-sex attraction tend to their own moral progress just as I attend to mine.

A lot of times, sexual attraction has a lot to do with gender identity. If I am not mistaken (which I am very sure I am not) one can only begin to develop his gender identity in relation to others. In other words, it is necessary for a boys to be around other boys for them to develop a masculine identity. As far as I know, this process of development is fundamentally a social thing. This is why I think that those people who have SSA as a result of a lack of identification (not everyone with SSA has SSA for this reason) with their own gender need to have the opportunity to form healthy (fraternal, not erotic) bonds with others of the same sex.

This is not to say that they should place their need for gender identification on others. However, being a good friend of such a person would be a tremendous help to a person. As Christians, we should be willing to help each other. Being a friend of such a person and presenting him with social ways of getting rid of SSA is not in any way looking past the log in one’s own eye to judge another.

CONTINUED…

 

[BobObob]

…CONTINUED

My conception of the sinful nature of the experience of same-sex attraction arises primarily from the threefold nature of mortal sin with the values of chastity and appetite merely being descriptive elements. To wit:

1. 
   *]The grave and serious matter prong is, as I’m sure you will agree, more than met.
   *]Full knowledge of the gravity of the offense is assumed since to do otherwise would contradict the human dignity of the individual.
   *]Allowing the condition to manifest itself either physically or abstractly requires passive consent, which is both complete and deliberate, in the presence of a therapeutic intervention, which would correct the errant appetite.
   
   To make an exception to this rule for the benefit of those with same-sex attraction is ultimately to rob such men and women of the possibility of being responsible, free, moral agents. Indeed, the appropriate response to all of your questions is one that involves telling those with same-sex attractions to grow up and stop looking for others to carry their crosses for them. There is no more loving thing that can be said to the individual with same-sex attractions than: “Be the man God created you to be or suffer the consequences.”

1. 
   CCC 1853 (partial) “The root of sin is in the heart of man, IN HIS FREE WILL, according to the teachings of the Lord.”
   
   CCC 1849 (partial) “[Sin] has been defined as 'an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to eternal law.”
   
   CCC 1850 (partial) “Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God THROUGH THE WILL to become ‘like gods,’ knowing and determining good and evil.”
   
   It should seem fairly obvious that sin is something that is intentional, deliberate, and willful, either actively or passively. It seems to me that the only way that the Church’s teaching could be interpreted differently is if you have a confused view of what is meant by “desire” in CCC 1849.
   
   You need to be very careful in interpreting the words “desire” and “appetite”. They can both be active (so as to be similar to the word “intention”), or passive (so as to be similar to the word “attraction”). The particular meaning depends of the word is simply what author intended the word to mean. Different authors may mean different things. The Church, by mentioning the voluntary aspect of sin, seems to be using the active meaning of the word “desire”.
   
   You also need to consider that the Church says the following about passions:
   
   CCC 1767 “IN THEMSELVES PASSIONS ARE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL. They are morally qualified only to the extent that the effectively engage reason and will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.” It belongs to the perfection of the moral good that the passions be governed by reason.”
   
   So, if one has a passion that tempts him to do what is intrinsically disordered, that passion is only evil insofar as it is not governed by his reason and will. If he conducts himself according to good conscience rather than according to perverse passions, then those passions are not evil or good (and not a sin).
   
   CCC 1857 “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is gave and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
   
   Even if merely having SSA is a sin (which it is not because a mere inclination to do what is evil is not in itself a sin, as mentioned above) merely having SSA would not always constitute a mortal sin because the condition of deliberate consent would not be met.
   
   CCC 1859 (partial) “[Mortal sin] also implies A CONSENT SUFFICIENTLY DELIBERATE TO BE A PERSONAL CHOICE.
   
   It seems that you assume that EVERYONE who has tried to get rid of SSA, but still has SSA, is passively consenting to having SSA. I certainly never actively chose to have SSA, and have not passively chosen to have SSA (I have done all that I know how to do to get rid of SSA). Did I consent to having SSA? No! Did I have consent sufficient for having SSA being a personal choice? Absolutely not! There are a lot of people like me out there who are virgins who never consented to having SSA (actively or passively), yet still have SSA.
   
   Again, part of the reason why I asked if you knew anyone with SSA is because if you did, you may be able to see that some people with SSA have not consented to having SSA (either actively or passively).

 

[LRodriguez]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kindom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prositutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaterers and all liars- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

Romans 3:22,23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

Jesus the way to the Father
Jonh 14:6 Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

 

[Other_Eric]

A lot of times, sexual attraction has a lot to do with gender identity. If I am not mistaken (which I am very sure I am not) one can only begin to develop his gender identity in relation to others. In other words, it is necessary for a boys to be around other boys for them to develop a masculine identity. As far as I know, this process of development is fundamentally a social thing. This is why I think that those people who have SSA as a result of a lack of identification (not everyone with SSA has SSA for this reason) with their own gender need to have the opportunity to form healthy (fraternal, not erotic) bonds with others of the same sex.

It should seem fairly obvious that sin is something that is intentional, deliberate, and willful, either actively or passively. It seems to me that the only way that the Church’s teaching could be interpreted differently is if you have a confused view of what is meant by “desire” in CCC 1849.

You need to be very careful in interpreting the words “desire” and “appetite”. They can both be active (so as to be similar to the word “intention”), or passive (so as to be similar to the word “attraction”). The particular meaning depends of the word is simply what author intended the word to mean. Different authors may mean different things. The Church, by mentioning the voluntary aspect of sin, seems to be using the active meaning of the word “desire”.

So, if one has a passion that tempts him to do what is intrinsically disordered, that passion is only evil insofar as it is not governed by his reason and will. If he conducts himself according to good conscience rather than according to perverse passions, then those passions are not evil or good (and not a sin).

I find it interesting that you apply to your etiological theory a number of qualifications. Sexual attraction only has to do with gender identity “a lot of times,” but you may be mistaken although you are “very sure” you are not, even though “not everyone with SSA has SSA for this reason.” It is a rare experience for me to develop a case of motion sickness while sitting still, reading mere text.

Might I suggest that all of these qualifications betray an underlying uncertainty about the nature of same-sex attraction sufficient to derail any formal policy about socializing those who experience it with those who do not? If you insist that such socialization is a necessary component of any prospective recovery program, then let the object of the socialization be the individual’s therapist. The dispassionate, professional environment of the therapist’s office is exactly the correct venue for this sort of thing. It allows for professional observation of the client’s progress towards appropriate forms of socialization and removes from jeopardy those innocent bystanders who might be harmed should things go wrong.

As for the nature of the word desire, I see no reason to prefer the active reading over the passive. I do not see how the voluntary nature of sin that the Church invokes is dispositive either way. Further, since the Church draws her definition of sin in paragraph 1849 from Aquinas, it is instructive to note that in the very same citation, that Doctor of the Church says:

Affirmation and negation are reduced to one same genus: e.g. in Divine things, begotten and unbegotten are reduced to the genus “relation,” as Augustine states (De Trin. v, 6,7): and so “word” and “deed” denote equally what is said and what is not said, what is done and what is not done. (1)

This therefore implies that “desire” is also to be read in both an active and passive light. Even if you continued to dispute such a thing, we would have to acknowledge that the exact nature of the term is an open question and that therefore prudence would lend preference to the more conservative reading.

That the errant passion may be excused if it is restrained or suppressed by the will or reason, I find to be a counterproductive idea, which can only lead to an explosive psychological end. Right reason and the will must be directed to correction of the errant impulse or they are improperly applied and the underlying passion sinful by your own definition.

As for the nature of any one individual’s experience of same-sex attraction, I respond that such testimony is inherently suspect and, as such, an improper foundation for the development of any sound policy position. There are simply too many incentives for an individual to leave out certain embarrassing details or even to fabricate alternate histories as a way of garnering sympathy and acceptance. Instead, objectively discernable evidence is what should be used. Given the nature of what has been revealed to us through Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, psychology, statistics and other disciplines, we have more than ample evidence to prudently discount the testimony of any individual whose “experience” contradicts such evidence.

(1) Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1920. New Advent. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition, 2006. Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 71, Art. 6. Available online at:newadvent.org/summa/2071.htm#article6

 

[BobObob]

I find it interesting that you apply to your etiological theory a number of qualifications. Sexual attraction only has to do with gender identity “a lot of times,” but you may be mistaken although you are “very sure” you are not, even though “not everyone with SSA has SSA for this reason.” It is a rare experience for me to develop a case of motion sickness while sitting still, reading mere text.

It is irresponsible for a psychologist to assume that something as complex as sexual attraction has only one etiological cause. Most psychological phenomenon has many causes.

It is also irresponsible for someone who is studying some complicated phenomenon in psychology to be absolutely, 100% certain about something. There is always more research that can be done. In both physical sciences and social sciences, theories that were widely accepted as 100% accurate are, from time to time, disproved, modified, and corrected. This is why I speak cautiously.

Might I suggest that all of these qualifications betray an underlying uncertainty about the nature of same-sex attraction sufficient to derail any formal policy about socializing those who experience it with those who do not? If you insist that such socialization is a necessary component of any prospective recovery program, then let the object of the socialization be the individual’s therapist. The dispassionate, professional environment of the therapist’s office is exactly the correct venue for this sort of thing. It allows for professional observation of the client’s progress towards appropriate forms of socialization and removes from jeopardy those innocent bystanders who might be harmed should things go wrong.

Such socialization should able to occur in a psychologist’s office. The socialization may be needed in order to get him to identify with his peers of the same sex. The therapist is a peer, but the relationship between the therapist and client might be hindered by the professional nature of the relationship. The relationship in therapy might not be able to fully carry over to a social setting because relating to a therapist that you are paying in an office setting is different from relating to the neighbors down the street.

It allows for professional observation of the client’s progress towards appropriate forms of socialization and removes from jeopardy those innocent bystanders who might be harmed should things go wrong.

I wonder, what kind of harm are you talking about? You seem to keep talking about those with SSA as if they are going to hurt people. People with SSA who are in prison may rape, and those people with SSA who have been molested as children are likely to be child molesters (a high % of the molested have SSA later in life, and a high % of the molested also become molesters). Outside of prison, and excluding those people who have been sexually molested, I don’t think that people with SSA are more likely to harm others than the average person.

As for the nature of the word desire, I see no reason to prefer the active reading over the passive. I do not see how the voluntary nature of sin that the Church invokes is dispositive either way. Further, since the Church draws her definition of sin in paragraph 1849 from Aquinas, it is instructive to note that in the very same citation, that Doctor of the Church says:

This therefore implies that “desire” is also to be read in both an active and passive light. Even if you continued to dispute such a thing, we would have to acknowledge that the exact nature of the term is an open question and that therefore prudence would lend preference to the more conservative reading.

So you do hold that sin, whether act or omission, must be voluntary. But you also hold that that is does not conflict with also holding that merely having a temptation to do what is wrong is a sin in itself. You don’t see how they contradict?

You cite Aquinas as evidence. In doing this you should realize that even though the Church takes much from him, he is not an absolute authority. Anyways, the point that was being made in question71 articles 5 and 6 is that sin can be omission rather than act. I had previously acknowledged this, and it does not mean that “desire” from the CCC is to be read to include that experiencing a disordered attraction is in itself a sin.

That the errant passion may be excused if it is restrained or suppressed by the will or reason, I find to be a counterproductive idea, which can only lead to an explosive psychological end. Right reason and the will must be directed to correction of the errant impulse or they are improperly applied and the underlying passion sinful by your own definition.

It would be ideal that we are not tempted toward sin. Holding that we can be save despite being tempted to do what is intrinsically wrong is not the same as to say we should not try to do what we can to change our temptations as far as we can.

However, I don’t see how you can jump from saying that “it is dangerous to not remove as many temptations to do what is intrinsically wrong as possible” to “having temptations to do what is intrinsically wrong is sinful in itself.” Plus, you seem to disagree with my understanding of the following:

CCC 1767 “IN THEMSELVES PASSIONS ARE NEITHER GOOD NOR EVIL. They are morally qualified only to the extent that the effectively engage reason and will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.” It belongs to the perfection of the moral good that the passions be governed by reason.”

 

[jongenaro]

I think the article should’ve written more of what he was saying so we could get a clearer depiction of what he meant. Surely celibate homosexuals who give their lives to Christ and live a life of holiness will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s the ones that mock the Church for their own rights and sinful lifestyles that sadly will condemn themselves to eternal damnation.

 

[Other_Eric]

It is irresponsible for a psychologist to assume that something as complex as sexual attraction has only one etiological cause. Most psychological phenomenon has many causes.

It is also irresponsible for someone who is studying some complicated phenomenon in psychology to be absolutely, 100% certain about something. There is always more research that can be done. In both physical sciences and social sciences, theories that were widely accepted as 100% accurate are, from time to time, disproved, modified, and corrected. This is why I speak cautiously.

Such socialization should able to occur in a psychologist’s office. The socialization may be needed in order to get him to identify with his peers of the same sex. The therapist is a peer, but the relationship between the therapist and client might be hindered by the professional nature of the relationship. The relationship in therapy might not be able to fully carry over to a social setting because relating to a therapist that you are paying in an office setting is different from relating to the neighbors down the street.

I wonder, what kind of harm are you talking about? You seem to keep talking about those with SSA as if they are going to hurt people. People with SSA who are in prison may rape, and those people with SSA who have been molested as children are likely to be child molesters (a high % of the molested have SSA later in life, and a high % of the molested also become molesters). Outside of prison, and excluding those people who have been sexually molested, I don’t think that people with SSA are more likely to harm others than the average person.

So you do hold that sin, whether act or omission, must be voluntary. But you also hold that that is does not conflict with also holding that merely having a temptation to do what is wrong is a sin in itself. You don’t see how they contradict?

You cite Aquinas as evidence. In doing this you should realize that even though the Church takes much from him, he is not an absolute authority. Anyways, the point that was being made in question71 articles 5 and 6 is that sin can be omission rather than act. I had previously acknowledged this, and it does not mean that “desire” from the CCC is to be read to include that experiencing a disordered attraction is in itself a sin.

It would be ideal that we are not tempted toward sin. Holding that we can be save despite being tempted to do what is intrinsically wrong is not the same as to say we should not try to do what we can to change our temptations as far as we can.

So, it seems that, in the end, you are less than convinced about the efficacy of reparative therapy to do what it claims. You state that a student of complex psychological phenomena, such as same-sex attraction is loathe “to be absolutely, 100% certain about something.” I can accept that for the same reasons that it is impossible for any individual to be absolutely, 100% certain about his own State of Grace. We must, however, be careful to maintain that the possibility that same-sex attractions will cease in all cases if the individual makes the requisite effort. To say otherwise is to rob him of hope and abandon him to the utter depravity of his disgusting condition.

I maintain that the psychologist’s office is the most appropriate venue in which to develop any and all socialization skills. If this environment is not able to fully transfer to, say, interactions with the neighbors, then perhaps what is called for is a gradual reintroduction back into society with all or at least most interactions being professionally monitored.

Moreover, as the cases of Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and Wayne Williams make clear, there is a potent risk associated with interacting with those who experience same-sex attractions. Since, as you will no doubt agree, we cannot be absolutely, 100% certain about which individual with same-sex attractions will exhibit such violent behavior, and since we know that they possess a higher incidence of such depravity, prudence suggests that the Christian take no undue risks.

Further, we cannot limit our definition of “harm” to include only physical assault. There is also the grave and ever-present possibility that the same-sex attracted individual’s poor personal theology will corrupt the faith of those not secure enough in that virtue. Again, since we cannot be sure the degree to which the same-sex attracted individual has allowed his mind and morals to atrophy, prudence suggests that the Christian not gamble his spiritual standing on such an acquaintance.

I maintain that same-sex attractions are the fruit of a culpable and willful decision, either active or passive, to remain that way. Therefore, strictly speaking, the temptation is not itself the sin but its presence infallible evidence of the obstinate refusal to accept the grace of Christ’s healing power. That Christ heals poor souls such as those of the same-sex attracted is something upon which we may firmly be absolutely, 100% certain of.

Further, let’s be clear about who it is that is citing Aquinas in order to define sin. It is not me but the Church herself, as you might have recognized from your own citation of the Catechism. The citation concerning the meaning of the word “desire” that I use is pulled from the *very same article *the Church cites and is used by Aquinas specifically to clarify the meaning of the word in his own definition. Therefore, unless it is your position that the Church is quoting Aquinas to mean something that the saint expressly did not mean and is thereby bearing false witness, my reading of the word remains sound.

 

[BobObob]

So, it seems that, in the end, you are less than convinced about the efficacy of reparative therapy to do what it claims. You state that a student of complex psychological phenomena, such as same-sex attraction is loathe “to be absolutely, 100% certain about something.” I can accept that for the same reasons that it is impossible for any individual to be absolutely, 100% certain about his own State of Grace. We must, however, be careful to maintain that the possibility that same-sex attractions will cease in all cases if the individual makes the requisite effort. To say otherwise is to rob him of hope and abandon him to the utter depravity of his disgusting condition.

It is inaccurate to say that I loathe certainty. It is irresponsible to be certain so as to deny the possibility of alternatives. Such exclusion of alternatives should never be completely done away with, merely only viewed as a smaller probability as evidence supports the already established view, or increased probability if new evidence supports the alternative. I thought I made it clear that this was the reason why it is irresponsible “to be absolutely, 100% certain about something.”

I’m not advocating that we deny someone with SSA the hope of being able to change their sexual orientation. If one wants to get rid of their SSA, it is good for him to be optimistic about the prognosis, but realistically so. It is not healthy to ASSUME that one will have no SSA after therapy, and that if such a situation has occurred, it MUST be that person’s fault.

I maintain that the psychologist’s office is the most appropriate venue in which to develop any and all socialization skills. If this environment is not able to fully transfer to, say, interactions with the neighbors, then perhaps what is called for is a gradual reintroduction back into society with all or at least most interactions being professionally monitored.

Moreover, as the cases of Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and Wayne Williams make clear, there is a potent risk associated with interacting with those who experience same-sex attractions. Since, as you will no doubt agree, we cannot be absolutely, 100% certain about which individual with same-sex attractions will exhibit such violent behavior, and since we know that they possess a higher incidence of such depravity, prudence suggests that the Christian take no undue risks.

So, it seems to me that you are not against someone with SSA mingle with other Christians who do not have SSA, but you are extremely suspicious about those who have SSA.

As for violent individuals with homosexual behavior, their sexual behavior is usually a different phenominon than those with SSA due to lack of indentification with their own gender. The primary thing going on regarding violent people with homosexual behavior is POWER STRUGGLE that makes the SADISTS. They are the type of people who gain pleasure by controlling and torturing others. While I admit that I have not done very much research on the individuals you mentioned (only enough to know that they are serial homosexual serial killers), it seems obvious to me that they gain pleasure by a sense of control (which is very typical of extreme sadism). This control for such individuals would be directed toward men because men (and boy) are perceived as having power. Such persons are like persons who exhibit homosexual behavior in prison. I’m sure there is a LOT more to it though.

Usually, when a person knows someone with SSA, they don’t know that they have SSA. Usually if one were to find out that such an individual had SSA, they would have already known that person pretty well. Such familiarity with such a person, combined with reasonable judgment, should provide that individual with a reasonable gage of that person’s character to know if such a person would be likely to exhibit violent behavior. If they are a person who long to fit in with other men (lack of gender identification), and they have seemed to have reasonable character, it is not very likely that they will be any more violent than the average person. The only exception to this is that those who have been molested themselves MIGHT be more likely to abuse children, but I don’t think would be more likely to hurt adults Again, you must consider that one having SSA due to lack of gender identification are almost always do not have the same phenomenon going on as those hyper “masculine” homosexual in prison who gets pleasure from a sense of control from feeling “macho” by hurting someone.

Overall, it takes good judgment to evaluate someone.

CONTINUED…

 

[BobObob]

CONTINUED…

Further, we cannot limit our definition of “harm” to include only physical assault. There is also the grave and ever-present possibility that the same-sex attracted individual’s poor personal theology will corrupt the faith of those not secure enough in that virtue. Again, since we cannot be sure the degree to which the same-sex attracted individual has allowed his mind and morals to atrophy, prudence suggests that the Christian not gamble his spiritual standing on such an acquaintance.

You are again assuming that one who has SSA is intrinsically disordered, not just the attraction. Any person can have poor theology and any disordered attractions (not just sexual) MAY OR MAY NOT have poor theology. We should not exclude one person because he has one significant thing that MAY OR MAY NOT impair their moral reasoning and theology because EVERYONE has many biases and inclinations that may impair their moral reasoning and theology. If you wanted to apply your reasoning above, this would exclude a lot of people. It is for the Magisterium, aided by the (hopefully correct) interpretation of the Church’s teaching by the clergy to guide those whose faith is not secure enough.

I’m sure that you think that I have poor theology in general, and especially in this regard, while I think that you have poor theology in this regard.

I maintain that same-sex attractions are the fruit of a culpable and willful decision, either active or passive, to remain that way. Therefore, strictly speaking, the temptation is not itself the sin but its presence infallible evidence of the obstinate refusal to accept the grace of Christ’s healing power. That Christ heals poor souls such as those of the same-sex attracted is something upon which we may firmly be absolutely, 100% certain of.

Even if you think that all those with SSA can simply get rid of SSA if they want to, consider this:

You consider those who did not actively chose to have SSA to have passively chosen to have SSA, but what about the time in between discovering having SSA after not having actively chosen it and not having SSA anymore (which would take time AFTER actively deciding NOT to have SSA). Such a person would have neither actively nor passively decided to have SSA.

Of course, that does not matter if having SSA in itself is not a sin.

You seem to think that because most people with SSA live sinful lives, that having SSA is an “INFALLIBLE evidence of the obstinate refusal to accept the grace of Christ’s healing power.” There is a key assumption that you make here:

Christ WILL get rid of one’s SSA if one’s seeks His healing power. Christ, being all-powerful, can do whatever He pleases. He can and has gotten rid of people’s SSA, but that does not mean that He will do it for all who properly seek His healing power. If having SSA is not in itself a sin, but something that may make sin more difficult to avoid, than could it not be pleasing to God to let an individual to continue to have SSA to have him instead do the difficult thing and not give in to something he is tempted to? The sacrifice of Christ’s penitential time in the desert was magnified by the fact that he was tempted.

Further, let’s be clear about who it is that is citing Aquinas in order to define sin. It is not me but the Church herself, as you might have recognized from your own citation of the Catechism. The citation concerning the meaning of the word “desire” that I use is pulled from the *very same article *the Church cites and is used by Aquinas specifically to clarify the meaning of the word in his own definition. Therefore, unless it is your position that the Church is quoting Aquinas to mean something that the saint expressly did not mean and is thereby bearing false witness, my reading of the word remains sound.

The Church does cite Aquinas. This does not mean that they mean the same thing in using his words as he does (although that is likely that this is so, this has not always been the case). However, the portion that you cited did not qualify “desire” to be in any way synonymous with “attraction”, “tendency”, “temptation”, but Aquinas, when referring to sin, merely means a WILLING. Also, Aquinas uses “desire” to mean different things in different contexts.

The context of the CCC indicates that a disordered attraction is not held to in itself be a sin.

The fact that SOME people with SSA have done EXTREMELY evil things, even if it might be at a much higher rate than those who don’t, is not infallible evidence of sin in everyone who has SSA (it seems to me that this is how you got to the position that you currently hold in the back of your mind). This extends well beyond SSA.

 

[peary1]

God bless this cardinal and all others who possess the courage to proclaim the beautiful truth: the experience of same-sex attractions is itself a sin that will lead people to Hell. It is an appetite that is willfully and obstinately chosen. The answer is to go to NARTH to rid yourself of these disgusting attractions or resign yourself to the fate of eternal damnation.

(1) Martin, James. “Cardinal: Gays ‘Will Never Enter the Kingdom of God.’” America Magazine. America Press Inc., New York, NY. Dec. 2, 2009. Available online at: americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=91852264-3048-741E-9870142928939885

Horsepuckey. The Church teaches that same-sex attraction, though disordered, is not in and of itself, sinful.

The Church also teaches that homosexual acts are wrong, just as hetersexual acts are wrong outside of the marriage bond. Both are called to purity and chastity in their relationships. A person with same-sex attraction is called to do this to a greater degree due to his or her condition.

The Church also teaches that a person with same-sex attraction should avail themselves frequently to the sacrament of reconciliation and the reception of the Eucharist. I know of a few homosexual couples who do this. We cannot judge hearts. It is difficult for them. They do not make a big deal out of their relationships.

 

[wisdomseeker]

God bless this cardinal and all others who possess the courage to proclaim the beautiful truth: the experience of same-sex attractions is itself a sin that will lead people to Hell. It is an appetite that is willfully and obstinately chosen. The answer is to go to NARTH to rid yourself of these disgusting attractions or resign yourself to the fate of eternal damnation.

(1) Martin, James. “Cardinal: Gays ‘Will Never Enter the Kingdom of God.’” America Magazine. America Press Inc., New York, NY. Dec. 2, 2009. Available online at: americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=91852264-3048-741E-9870142928939885

Finally one of our leaders has the courage to stand for what is right. these are confusing times and nobody seems to take a stand. i am sure he is going to pay for that. without mention that many Catholics also will come against him. Not me. i will stand behind him 100 per cent. many are afraid of persecution today, they rather lay silent. obviously this one is not afraid. Glory be to God.

 

[BobObob]

Finally one of our leaders has the courage to stand for what is right. these are confusing times and nobody seems to take a stand. i am sure he is going to pay for that. without mention that many Catholics also will come against him. Not me. i will stand behind him 100 per cent. many are afraid of persecution today, they rather lay silent. obviously this one is not afraid. Glory be to God.

This is what the Cardinal said:

zenit.org/article-27740?l=english

I’m curious, how do you hold the view that merely experiencing same-sex attractions, even if one is celebate, is sinning, dispite what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, which seems to take a different position? The CCC says:

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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.
1767 Passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way. It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.

Notice that it says that homosexuality refers to relations, which it implies is sexual. Also notice the acts are disordered. It does not say that having SSA is in itself a sin. It does say that the inclination is objectively disordered, but in the same sense that concupiscence is disordered, it can lead toward sin, but is not necessarily sin in itself.

Notice it does not say that they need to get rid of the condition. Rather, it says that they should “Unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” Why would it say that they should “Unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition” if, like you think (if I’m interpreting your view correctly), they have a strict moral obligation to change their condition. Your view seems to conflict with what the CCC says.

 

[BobObob]

This is what the Cardinal said:

zenit.org/article-27740?l=english

I’m curious, how do you hold the view that merely experiencing same-sex attractions, even if one is celebate, is sinning, dispite what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, which seems to take a different position? The CCC says:

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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.
1767 Passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way. It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.

Notice that it says that homosexuality refers to relations, which it implies is sexual. Also notice the acts are disordered. It does not say that having SSA is in itself a sin. It does say that the inclination is objectively disordered, but in the same sense that concupiscence is disordered, it can lead toward sin, but is not necessarily sin in itself.

Notice it does not say that they need to get rid of the condition. Rather, it says that they should “Unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” Why would it say that they should “Unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition” if, like you think (if I’m interpreting your view correctly), they have a strict moral obligation to change their condition. Your view seems to conflict with what the CCC says.

I just wanted to add that:

CCC 1772 “The principle passions are love and hatred, desire and fear, joy, sadness, and anger.” (emphasis mine)

If desire is one of the principle passions, and passions are neither good nor evil in themselves (CCC 1767), then doesn’t the Church hold that “desire”, at least in one sense, is neither good nor evil. This is the same use of the word “desire” that you might use when referring to sexual “desires”, which are passions, but a different sense than is being used in the definition of sin:

CCC 1849 (partial) “[Sin] has been defined as ‘an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.’” (emphasis mine)

 

[Zoe_Brain]

This debate is all well and good : but what about Transsexuals?

They may be Gay, Lesbian, or Straight. It doesn’t matter, according to his Emininence, they are excluded. If they are excluded because of their behaviour, exactly what behaviour is that?

 

[wisdomseeker]

This is what the Cardinal said:

zenit.org/article-27740?l=english

I’m curious, how do you hold the view that merely experiencing same-sex attractions, even if one is celebate, is sinning, dispite what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, which seems to take a different position? The CCC says:

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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.
1767 Passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way. It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.

Notice that it says that homosexuality refers to relations, which it implies is sexual. Also notice the acts are disordered. It does not say that having SSA is in itself a sin. It does say that the inclination is objectively disordered, but in the same sense that concupiscence is disordered, it can lead toward sin, but is not necessarily sin in itself.

Notice it does not say that they need to get rid of the condition. Rather, it says that they should “Unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.” Why would it say that they should “Unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition” if, like you think (if I’m interpreting your view correctly), they have a strict moral obligation to change their condition. Your view seems to conflict with what the CCC says.

what i see is that the Cardinal has given a warn to those who are living this life style. If they dont repent, they sure can be lost since nothing unclean can enter Heaven. of course God is the Judge and God has said Himself of those who commit these sins will inherit death.
have you notice that if a Priest or Bishop stands for the Truth, attacks is launched on them. now, nothing happens if all just remain silent and let everybody do as they please.

 

[BobObob]

what i see is that the Cardinal has given a warn to those who are living this life style. If they dont repent, they sure can be lost since nothing unclean can enter Heaven. of course God is the Judge and God has said Himself of those who commit these sins will inherit death.
have you notice that if a Priest or Bishop stands for the Truth, attacks is launched on them. now, nothing happens if all just remain silent and let everybody do as they please.

Just for clarification:

What do you mean by “this life style” (when talking about sin)?

By “this life style” do you mean a life in which a person engages in homosexual acts and/or condones homosexual acts? If so, than I may have misinterpreted your initial post, and we may be in agreement.

Or by “this lifestyle” do you mean a life in which someone shows traits that are commonly attributed to people with SSA (such as feminine mannerisms in men), regardless of how they behave sexually?

 

[Other_Eric]

It is inaccurate to say that I loathe certainty. It is irresponsible to be certain so as to deny the possibility of alternatives. Such exclusion of alternatives should never be completely done away with, merely only viewed as a smaller probability as evidence supports the already established view, or increased probability if new evidence supports the alternative. I thought I made it clear that this was the reason why it is irresponsible “to be absolutely, 100% certain about something.”

You are again assuming that one who has SSA is intrinsically disordered, not just the attraction. Any person can have poor theology and any disordered attractions (not just sexual) MAY OR MAY NOT have poor theology. We should not exclude one person because he has one significant thing that MAY OR MAY NOT impair their moral reasoning and theology because EVERYONE has many biases and inclinations that may impair their moral reasoning and theology. If you wanted to apply your reasoning above, this would exclude a lot of people. It is for the Magisterium, aided by the (hopefully correct) interpretation of the Church’s teaching by the clergy to guide those whose faith is not secure enough.

It seems to me that your conception of Christ and the manner in which He bestows His graces and healing has more in common with Calvin than with Rome. It seems that the question of whether or not Christ will heal someone who reaches out to Him is not defined by the faith of the individual but, rather, by Christ’s arbitrary yet sovereign decision, completely unaccountable to human reason. I caution that a Christ who is so stingy in the fashion with healing grace may just as easily be stingy with salvific grace. To say that Christ would deny healing to any person with same-sex attractions who asks for it is to say that such a man is doomed to the sexually compulsive nature of his condition in this life and, then, the necessary eternal torment of the next. Such a conception of God is monstrous and quite alien to the Tradition of the Church.

To try and get around this, you have offered strained reasoning which essentially says that the Church has knowingly misrepresented one of her own doctors, and applied a lot of fancy excuse-making for those who have simply failed to do what is required of them. You seem to conceive of some indeterminate state in which the presence of God fails to cast out impurity but that, nevertheless, no impurity will be admitted to the Beatific Vision. You seem never to even bother asking whether or not this condition you’ve made up might just not be one of the same pathological delusions that allows another man to say that he “loves” the same-sex partner he regularly sodomizes.

Herein lies the crux of my problem with many of these so-called “humane” approaches to the question. They completely emasculate Christ and His power to heal. They apply a relaxed standard of effort to those who experience same-sex attraction telling them both that there may exist “hope” for relief from their condition but that they should never expect that God will provide it. Instead, they are encouraged in a Manichean sexual ethic that is redefined as “chastity.” The whole project is so fraught with internal contradictions and affronts to Church teaching that it could only survive in these dark days apologetic illiteracy.

My Christ is the Christ who heals those who make the effort to reach out and merely brush His robes. He is not a Christ who is wholly indifferent to the sufferings of His creation and, out of apparent vanity, withholds such help to subsequently dazzle creation with His redemptive power or to just provide evidence against His creation come Judgment. My Christ is the Christ who demands purity in both the internal and external forums. He is not a Christ Who privileges one over the other, accepting a man’s corporeal conduct while remaining wholly indifferent to the state of that same man’s heart. Mine is a Christ who prizes genuine effort made on His behalf rather than self-serving half-measures which, in the end, amount merely to sloth.

I would therefore caution you to make sure that the God a man with same-sex attractions prostrates himself to is indeed the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, Peter and the Blessed Virgin. It would be a tragedy of unimaginable magnitude if, at the point of death, such a man comes to realize that his was a idolatrous piety directed entirely to a convenient fantasy of his own creation.

 

[BobObob]

It seems that the question of whether or not Christ will heal someone who reaches out to Him is not defined by the faith of the individual but, rather, by Christ’s arbitrary yet sovereign decision, completely unaccountable to human reason. I caution that a Christ who is so stingy in the fashion with healing grace may just as easily be stingy with salvific grace. To say that Christ would deny healing to any person with same-sex attractions who asks for it is to say that such a man is doomed to the sexually compulsive nature of his condition in this life and, then, the necessary eternal torment of the next. Such a conception of God is monstrous and quite alien to the Tradition of the Church.

How about being accountable to DIVINE REASON.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 55:8)

There are times in which someone make the effort and properly prays to God for something, but God answers that prayer in a different way than what they expected. Like I said in an earlier post, if having SSA is not in itself a sin, than doing what is holy and avoiding sin despite having SSA could be more of a pleasing sacrifice, or it might please Him more by taking SSA away from them and have them testify to other about what He did for them.

Having SSA is not equivalent to a sexual addiction as you assert above.

To try and get around this, you have offered strained reasoning which essentially says that the Church has knowingly misrepresented one of her own doctors, and applied a lot of fancy excuse-making for those who have simply failed to do what is required of them. You seem to conceive of some indeterminate state in which the presence of God fails to cast out impurity but that, nevertheless, no impurity will be admitted to the Beatific Vision. You seem never to even bother asking whether or not this condition you’ve made up might just not be one of the same pathological delusions that allows another man to say that he “loves” the same-sex partner he regularly sodomizes.

I never said (or at least never meant to say) that the CHURCH misinterpreted Aquinas, I’m saying YOU misinterpreted Aquinas.

You never qualify what you mean by “impurity” when you say that “ no impurity will be admitted to the Beatific Vision.” Your thinking in this regard seems to be like the thinking of the people who asked “who sinned” regarding the blind man. Christ did qualify what perfection he was needed when he said:

“Be perfect, therefore, AS YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER IS PERFECT.” (Matthew 5:48)

Perfection, as our Heavenly Father is perfect, is perfection of the soul. Our Heavenly Father does not have a human nature, and thus is not a sexual being with either opposite-sex or same-sex attraction.

You probably are thinking in your mind at this point of the place in the catechism that states that “sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the body and soul” (CCC 2332) You seem to interpret this as meaning that “if one’s sexuality is oriented to do what is intrinsically wrong, than that person’s soul is in an equal state”. Many things affect our souls, because they can influence us to do what is good or evil, not because having an imperfection in that regard is an imperfection of the soul.

Someone who sodomized another is freely choosing to perform what is a perversion of what is good, sex. Merely having a temptation toward such a perversion is not a sin.

CONTINUED…