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

[estesbob]

I’m glad that you feel that way! Progress. Unfortunately for you though, and I know better than to think that you aren’t aware of this, the use of the term “homosexuals”, presents many, dishonest manipulations that easily rise to the surface upon closer examination. The first of which, isn’t going to do you any favors.** You do realize that according to that faulty excuse of a translation, that such a term would imply that “homosexuals”, practicing or not, will not inherit God’s Kingdom.** That would seem to go against the pathetic effort towards"clean-up", many “Christians”, on this forum try to manage. Care to explain?

Based , I am sure, on your personal interpretation of Scripture. So you and Mea Culpa disagree on how to interpert those verses. how do we resolve that?

 

[truagape]

Based , I am sure, on your personal interpretation of Scripture. So you and Mea Culpa disagree on how to interpert those verses. how do we resolve that?

Try asking him, I didn’t post it!

 

[estesbob]

Try asking him, I didn’t post it!

You really have nothing to contribute to this thread, do you? Bye.

 

[truagape]

You really have nothing to contribute to this thread, do you? Bye.

I think I already have, whether you choose to admit it or not!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Truagape:

Here’s the problem: we as Catholics are called to think with the mind of the Church. We do not interpret Scripture or really anything else apart from the Church because we simply cannot and hope to arrive at a truthful conclusion. No Catholic even half-way educated in the faith will ever bend to the interpretations you present because those interpretations are contrary to the Church out of which those very Scriptures arose and of which the Church is the guardian.

I cannot help but think that “spinning your wheels” in this manner can only add to what I respectfully acknowledge must be a very real pain.

 

[truagape]

Truagape:

Here’s the problem: we as Catholics are called to think with the mind of the Church. We do not interpret Scripture or really anything else apart from the Church because we simply cannot and hope to arrive at a truthful conclusion. No Catholic even half-way educated in the faith will ever bend to the interpretations you present because those interpretations are contrary to the Church out of which those very Scriptures arose and of which the Church is the guardian.

I cannot help but think that “spinning your wheels” in this manner can only add to what I respectfully acknowledge must be a very real pain.

Once again I will say: THE ONLY INTREPRETATION THUS FAR ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FROM THE OTHER SIDE. NOT ME!

 

[Janet_S]

Truagape, you seem to believe that the Church’s teachings against homosexuality rest solely on Genesis 19 and the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah. You also seem to believe that the Catholic Church misinterpreted this section of the Bible and, because of this misinterpretation, the Church is responsible for the persecution of homosexuals since the dawn of time. Nice theory, but for this to be true, you would have to prove that Genesis 19 was the cornerstone of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I already listed three documents from the Vatican regarding the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. Anyone who reads these documents will realize Genesis 19 is not the basis for the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.

Truagape, if you want to argue against the Church’s teachings, why not argue against what the Church actually says, not what you think it says or what someone told you it says. I realize that the argument you are bringing up–the argument that the sin of Sodom and Gemorrah is lack of hospitality and not homosexuality is a very popular one among gay rights activists, but it doesn’t engage the real reasons the Catholic Church gives as to why homosexual acts are inherently wrong.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/PSYCHOMO.HTM

Why don’t you read any or all of the above Church statements, and tell us in your opinion where the Church goes wrong. Don’t go off on a tangent and tell us how the Church lied to us about Genesis 19. It’s really irrelevant since Genesis 19 is not the sole basis for the Church’s teaching anyway. Any furthermore, I’m not aware that the Church every made an infallible statement on the interpretation of Genesis 19.

 

[truagape]

Truagape:

Here’s the problem: we as Catholics are called to think with the mind of the Church. We do not interpret Scripture or really anything else apart from the Church because we simply cannot and hope to arrive at a truthful conclusion. No Catholic even half-way educated in the faith will ever bend to the interpretations you present because those interpretations are contrary to the Church out of which those very Scriptures arose and of which the Church is the guardian.

I cannot help but think that “spinning your wheels” in this manner can only add to what I respectfully acknowledge must be a very real pain.

I can respect your alliegence to the Catholic Church. You are free to support and believe what ever you want in regards to it. But, if you or anyone else commence to try to use the scriptures to back up the Church’s unscriptural teachings regarding “homosexuality”, well then as I’ve said before, that’s when even the scriptural facts themselves halt the process! The only pain at this point, has got to be for you and any other supporter of the “Traditions of men” to recognize this fact as true.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Once again I will say: THE ONLY INTREPRETATION THUS FAR ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN PROVIDED FROM THE OTHER SIDE. NOT ME!

With respect, you clearly gave an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 when you said this:

“You do realize that according to that faulty excuse of a translation, that such a term would imply that “homosexuals”, practicing or not, will not inherit God’s Kingdom.” (emphasis mine).

That is how you would interpret the verse, isn’t it? If it is, my first post in this thread explains why we as Catholics cannot accept that interpretation, as the Church in the living magisterium has already spoken and said the following:

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](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2359.htm’) 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.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I can respect your alliegence to the Catholic Church. You are free to support and believe what ever you want in regards to it. But, if you or anyone else commence to try to use the scriptures to back up the Church’s unscriptural teachings regarding “homosexuality”, well then as I’ve said before, that’s when even the scriptural facts themselves halt the process! The only pain at this point, has got to be for you and any other supporter of the “Traditions of men” to recognize this fact as true.

Are you not essentially asking us to accept the idea of “Sola Scriptura?” The Catholic Church has NEVER, EVER believed that, not from the time of the Fathers, the very disciples of the Apostles themselves! It is an idea that only came up in the Protestant Reformation and it is utterly unfounded in the Apostolic Faith or even in the Bible itself!

 

[truagape]

Truagape, you seem to believe that the Church’s teachings against homosexuality rest solely on Genesis 19 and the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gemorrah. You also seem to believe that the Catholic Church misinterpreted this section of the Bible and, because of this misinterpretation, the Church is responsible for the persecution of homosexuals since the dawn of time. Nice theory, but for this to be true, you would have to prove that Genesis 19 was the cornerstone of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. I already listed three documents from the Vatican regarding the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. Anyone who reads these documents will realize Genesis 19 is not the basis for the Church’s teachings on homosexuality.

Truagape, if you want to argue against the Church’s teachings, why not argue against what the Church actually says, not what you think it says or what someone told you it says. I realize that the argument you are bringing up–the argument that the sin of Sodom and Gemorrah is lack of hospitality and not homosexuality is a very popular one among gay rights activists, but it doesn’t engage the real reasons the Catholic Church gives as to why homosexual acts are inherently wrong.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/PSYCHOMO.HTM

Why don’t you read any or all of the above Church statements, and tell us in your opinion where the Church goes wrong. Don’t go off on a tangent and tell us how the Church lied to us about Genesis 19. It’s really irrelevant since Genesis 19 is not the sole basis for the Church’s teaching anyway. Any furthermore, I’m not aware that the Church every made an infallible statement on the interpretation of Genesis 19.

Is this your round about way of dismissing the facts regarding Gen. 19? And for the record, it wasn’t me that made such a big deal about this. The manufactured term of “sodomite”, houses the lie of Gen.19 all by itself, and then infects both the New Testament and the Old Testament with it. You may want to think again on who it actually was that made a big deal about Gen. 19. Cause history will confrim that it definately was not me!

 

[truagape]

Are you not essentially asking us to accept the idea of “Sola Scriptura?” The Catholic Church has NEVER, EVER believed that, not from the time of the Fathers, the very disciples of the Apostles themselves! It is an idea that only came up in the Protestant Reformation and it is utterly unfounded in the Apostolic Faith or even in the Bible itself!

Here we go again, back to generalities. What’s the matter, not liking the details?

 

[truagape]

With respect, you clearly gave an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 when you said this:

“You do realize that according to that faulty excuse of a translation, that such a term would imply that “homosexuals”, practicing or not, will not inherit God’s Kingdom.” (emphasis mine).

That is how you would interpret the verse, isn’t it?

Wrong yet again buddy! You’re over looking the actions and statments of your fellow Catholic and non-Catholic members on these very fourms. The “practicing or not”, termonology is the rehtoric they dance around. Please keep your facts straight

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here we go again, back to generalities. What’s the matter, not liking the details?

I’m sorry, but you haven’t convinced me of the truth of the details. Can you point me to what you said regarding Genesis that will help me understand the issue you are presenting?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Wrong yet again buddy! You’re over looking the actions and statments of your fellow Catholic and non-Catholic members on these very fourms. The “practicing or not”, termonology is the rehtoric they dance around. Please keep your facts straight

What precisely do you mean? How are my fellow Catholics dancing around “practicing or not?”

 

[truagape]

What precisely do you mean? How are my fellow Catholics dancing around “practicing or not?”

Why don’t you spend a day or two familarizing yourself with the serch function. In the meantime, I’m out. I have a very busy schedule ahead of me.
Take Care, and I really do mean that!

 

[Janet_S]

And which lies were those?

Here are a few of the lies of the gay rights political movement:

– that homosexuality is inborn or genetic. This is a lie, there is no evidence of this.

that homosexuality is a part of one’s nature and is immutable. This is a lie, and there is evidence to the contrary. People in gay life styles are human, so they have free will. No one ever died from lack of sex.

that homosexuality is natural and healthy. Wrong, it’s not. It’s not our religious beliefs but our common sense that tells us sex has a complementary nature to it. To put it more bluntly, the anus and mouth are not copulatory organs.

that a union of a man and man is just as healthy and natural (in every way) as a union of a man and woman. Another lie, see above. “Male and female he made them.”

that those who believe marriage defined only as the union of a man and a woman are bigots and should be treated the same as racists. A lie. Marriage has universally, at all times, in all places, and across all cultures involved the union of man (or men) with women. Acceptance of same sex unions is unprecedented. Anyone with a traditional and universal view of marriage will be subjected to persecution. This will affect religious freedom and our freedom to teach our own children.

that all problems experienced by those in the homosexual life style (high suicide rate, alcoholism, depression, early death, STD’s, etc.) are the fault of society, and not an inherent problem with homosexuality itself. A lie. People living the gay life style–at least in America, Canada, and Europe–are a protected class and are still suffering from the effects of active homosexuality. Changing society is not the answer.

 

[Janet_S]

Is this your round about way of dismissing the facts regarding Gen. 19? And for the record, it wasn’t me that made such a big deal about this. The manufactured term of “sodomite”, houses the lie of Gen.19 all by itself, and then infects both the New Testament and the Old Testament with it. You may want to think again on who it actually was that made a big deal about Gen. 19. Cause history will confrim that it definately was not me!

Tell us about this history then, because I’m really not aware of it. Like I said, I’m not aware the Church ever gave a definitive interpretation of Genesis 19. Since you seem to be claiming it did, put your cards on the table. If, on the other hand you are bluffing, engage the Church in the argument she makes in the 3 documents linked above. If you don’t want to take the time to read these documents and learn what the Church teaches, maybe you should refrain from making such outlandish claims against a Church you don’t really understand.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Here are a few of the lies of the gay rights political movement:

– that homosexuality is inborn or genetic. This is a lie, there is no evidence of this.

that homosexuality is a part of one’s nature and is immutable. This is a lie, and there is evidence to the contrary. People in gay life styles are human, so they have free will. No one ever died from lack of sex.

that homosexuality is natural and healthy. Wrong, it’s not. It’s not our religious beliefs but our common sense that tells us sex has a complementary nature to it. To put it more bluntly, the anus and mouth are not copulatory organs.

that a union of a man and man is just as healthy and natural (in every way) as a union of a man and woman. Another lie, see above. “Male and female he made them.”

that those who believe marriage defined only as the union of a man and a woman are bigots and should be treated the same as racists. A lie. Marriage has universally, at all times, in all places, and across all cultures involved the union of man (or men) with women. Acceptance of same sex unions is unprecedented. Anyone with a traditional and universal view of marriage will be subjected to persecution. This will affect religious freedom and our freedom to teach our own children.

that all problems experienced by those in the homosexual life style (high suicide rate, alcoholism, depression, early death, STD’s, etc.) are the fault of society, and not an inherent problem with homosexuality itself. A lie. People living the gay life style–at least in America, Canada, and Europe–are a protected class and are still suffering from the effects of active homosexuality. Changing society is not the answer.

I agree with all that you’ve said, but I think we need to clarify the Church’s response to the first two.

In the Catechism, Church offers no opinion as to the genesis of homosexuality’s pathology, ie, the “nature vs. nurture” issue, if we’re talking about the orientation itself. She hasn’t offered one because She doesn’t know it’s specific origin, ie, why one person has a homosexual orientation, why another doesn’t. It might BE genetic, but that would not make homosexual activity any more morally acceptable. It might BE environmental, but that also would not make homosexuality any more acceptable. There may be a genetic or environmental propensity to alcoholism, but that doesn’t make drunkeness morally licit or acceptable. She affirms that homosexuality is a state that is disordered according to the natural law and She affirms that it is the result of sin, but notice that she doesn’t attribute that sin necessarily to the person laboring under the cross of the disordered orientation. It could be the result of another’s sin. For example, there is a theory that holds that if one has not established a sound and loving bond with the same sex parent, one might have a propensity in latter life to homosexuality (ie, one might seek for that sound and loving bond with a partner of the same gender and express that need in genital activity). What if the failure to develop that bond is not the fault of the child (I rather imagine that it rarely is, though natrually I cannot prove it)? What if it is because that parent was abusive, or cold and emotionally distant or deserted the family? If the suffering child then develops a propensity toward homosexuality, ie, an orientation, whose sin caused it? Certainly, the child is responsible for the actions he or she might then engage it, but we’re talking about the genesis of the disorder at this point, not the actions. I have not trouble believing that homosexual people do not generally choose their orientation. I understand completely that they exercise a choice in undertaking genital activity and I understand that those acts are gravely sinful.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Truagape is an obviously pained, young individual. His arguments are those of a desperate soul. In his present mind set, we cannot convince him ("…eyes that do not see, ears that do not hear") of what I believe his heart already knows. Sexual acts outside of holy matrimony is sinful. No need for a lot of discussion, no wriggle room; it is what it is.

In a recent parish discussion group, I mentioned my dismay with the curricula and outside activities I encountered at a visit to Seattle University (Jesuit school) especially the gay/lesbian influence, specifically the inclusion of G/L couples as the norm. A young man at the group asked me what G/L’s were supposed to do in relation to their sexual desires. When I responded they were called to chastity and celibacy, just like any other single person, the young man was shocked. What shocked him was that I thought all unmarried persons were bound to chastity.

All this to say we as a Church have failed to instruct our children well. We’ve confused them by hailing the unmarried mom as a heroine for not killing her child, by allowing all night prom parties in hotels with virtually no supervision. We welcome our sons/daughters and their partners in our homes despite the fact they are openly living together.

The message of tolerance and love of the individual has been transformed to mean acceptance of the act.