Catholics only: Do you hate homosexual sex acts (as we are obliged to)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter urban-hermit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rpp said:
You are misquoting her.

She said active homosexual. Do not misconstrue her statements. You are being most unfair when you misquote people.
Click to expand...
thank you RPP.
Guess he missed the “active” part in my post or intentionally ignored it
 
TMC said:
I am not trying to misquote, and I am not trying to be unfair. Being an active homosexual does not disqualify one from being Catholic. Neither does being an active adulterer, thief or liar. Is there some rule I am unaware of that automatically excommunicates active homosexuals? There is a list of transgressions that bears that penalty, but none of the ‘sex’ sins is on the list as far as I know.
Click to expand...
It is not about disqualification from the faith. It is about scandal. We do have an obligation for others.

Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

So, in a parish if we have people publicly contradicting what the Church teaches how is that a proper example?
 
fix said:
It is not about disqualification from the faith. It is about scandal. We do have an obligation for others.

Respect for the souls of others: scandal
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

So, in a parish if we have people publicly contradicting what the Church teaches how is that a proper example?
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was a proper example, I said that active homosexuals are not barred from being Catholic. Do you know of an authority that says otherwise?
 
rpp said:
You are misquoting her.

She said active homosexual. Do not misconstrue her statements. You are being most unfair when you misquote people.
Click to expand...
TMC said:
I didn’t say it was a proper example, I said that active homosexuals are not barred from being Catholic. Do you know of an authority that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
How did we get from scandal to not being a Catholic?

The question still stands for the gent that posted he had two people that he classified as** homosexual partners** in his Catholic choir. How does this not cause a scandal??
 
TMC said:
I didn’t say it was a proper example, I said that active homosexuals are not barred from being Catholic. Do you know of an authority that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
This is a dead issue that only you are raising.
 
TMC said:
I didn’t say it was a proper example, I said that active homosexuals are not barred from being Catholic. Do you know of an authority that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
How did we get from homosexual partners in the Catholic Choir causing a scandal to now not being Catholic?
 
drpmjhess said:
See # 425
Click to expand...
If you dont know their sexual practices then you should of not used the word “partner” to describe them.
As stated before “partner” in the context of two homosexuals equates to sexual relations between them.
 
wifeandmomoftwo said:
If you dont know their sexual practices then you should of not used the word “partner” to describe them.
As stated before “partner” in the context of two homosexuals equates to sexual relations between them.
Click to expand...
As you use the term “partner.” I know a chaste lesbian couple who owned a house and cars together for fifty years.
 
drpmjhess said:
What is that supposed to mean? I thought you were all in favor of homosexual chastity.
Click to expand...
we are all in favor of homosexual chastity:D
what it means is you seem familiar with a few homosexuals sex lives or lack there of, especially for someone that is hesitant to ask people about their sex lives:shrug:
 
drpmjhess said:
As you use the term “partner.” I know a chaste lesbian couple who owned a house and cars together for fifty years.
Click to expand...
If they were really chaste and if you can know this I donn’t know how. Then they were more like a sister - sister married life.

Which of course the law would not even allow.

But why would they be called lesbian?

If they owned these things but not married then not much different than a mother and daughter wanting to own everything together because the one is going to inherit it anyways, but if they aren’t related then the real immediate family has presedence over material goods. If there wasn’t a law like this then many people would be taking over other people lives.

We have to have natural laws and legal laws, even if the relatives don’t get along.

It is called robbing the booty when a person horns in on family trying to take that person completely away and not let them have contact with any member of the family.

Similar to the first wives club, that first wife will always be able to hold the power, unless she relinguishes it but then even some laws protect them when they don’t know it.
People do many things for many reasons such as if the one had a sister who died and looking for another person to fill the shoes, would she look for a man to do this, maybe better, but if she never wanted one then she may look for a manly woman. Or just some one to be dependant on.
Homosexual sex acts are a deviation from the natural law.
 
TMC said:
I didn’t say it was a proper example, I said that active homosexuals are not barred from being Catholic. Do you know of an authority that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
Who that they were not Catholic? I am implying they should not be in positions that would lead someone else to conclude the Church says it is licit to live as husband and wife when they are not husband and wife.
 
TMC said:
I didn’t say it was a proper example, I said that active homosexuals are not barred from being Catholic. Do you know of an authority that says otherwise?
Click to expand...
Do you mean are they excommunicated? No but…

It is a form of selfexclusion.

CCC 1861;
Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of CHARITY and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is the state of grace…
However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and MERCY of God.

So yes, you are like bringing the other person to hell with you, or murdering him or her.
 
The question posed by the OP was do you hate homosexual acts. If the question posed had been:

Do you hate smoking?

this thread would have ended by page two and everyone would have agreed. Because as a society, we have been educated over the last 40 years about the dangers of smoking to our health. Smoking, which is neither sinful nor instrinsically disordered, is universally accepted as harmful; not just to the individual but to society at large. Hence, there are now numerous laws in place to prevent this behavior in public and to discourage it in private.

Homosexual acts, which are instrinsically immoral and a sin, are harmful to the body and to the soul. While common sense should be enough to draw conclusions about the physical damage involved, we can also look to science to help us understand the danger involved in such acts. As Catholics, we must certainly understand the danger to the soul. Yet, we remain unwilling to state that we hate homosexual acts. We are somehow able to separate our hatred of the act of smoking from the smoker himself, but in the case of homosexuals we become ambivalent.

Why is that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top