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

[blessedtoo]

I am then addressing a person who has defined himself/herself by the homosexual behavior. If they don’t separate it how can I? To hate the act could result in hating the person.

The human person is not the sum total of his actions. Regardless of what the gay activists would have us believe, it is imperative that we separate ourselves from our sinful actions. But the first step in succeeding at this is recognizing the sin itself. What you encounter (and me as well) is a group of people who have CHOSEN to identify themselves completely with their sin and remain willfully ignorant and stubbornly unrepentent. In the quest to justify this lifestyle choice, it is essential that they somehow convince you that they and their actions are one. We, as Catholics, know this is not true. We may lie, cheat, and steal, but we know that these are not the actions that define us as humans. If we seek the truth and keep an open heart, we are blessed to acknowledge our guilt, repent, and try harder to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is.”

 

[blessedtoo]

I hope you didn’t jump ship yet. Perhaps I can offer an explanation.

Since you are a new member (welcome!), you are probably not familiar with the tempestuous nature of some of the threads on CAF. Certain “hot button” issues (like this one) tend to attract many, many homosexual supporters who enjoy coming to Catholic websites and tossing out accusatory buzzwords like “homophobic”, “intolerant”, “hateful”, “judgemental”, etc. If it weren’t so sad it might be comic in it’s predictability. So when a new poster joins a thread like this and employs such words, red flags tend to go up all over the place.

When I started lurking on these forums 2 years ago, as a newly returning Catholic (24 yrs away), I was confused and torn on this and other issues of morality. At first, it seemed caustic and abrasive but in a very short time it became obvious that the amount of confusion (including mine at the time) among Catholics on this issue is so great and astounding that it tends to shock those who have been on the front lines for some time. It’s simply inconceivable to many of us that Church teaching could be anything but crystal clear and chock full of reason.

So forgive those of us who react before thinking (it’s why I suggested we all say a little prayer before posting!) and stick around awhile. You won’t believe how much you will learn about your faith! God bless!*

 

[Pug]

… by my now adult child, the serial murderer, …
and my continuing to love WHO HE IS, even though he continues to kill (he hasn’t gotten caught yet and I don’t have the heart to turn him in - he’s got so much potential … If he could just kick this one bad habit… I just hate that he keeps killing…)

I find this even more disturbing/confusing. First, I would most likely turn him in. This makes sense if I want him to stop the sin. Second, I am uncomfortable with language like “one bad habit”. That sounds like lifting the needle too soon on your old LPs rather than something used in conjunction with murder. It sounds like an excuse, and not something I would label “hate”. Third, I most hear the phrase “I just hate…” in a chatty sort of way in the context of “I just *hate *what she’s done with the place.” That to me is not similar to murder in scope. I know, though, perhaps it is just me who’s heard that phrase so often in that context. Sin is something that mars the face of the universe, making things horribly not as they should be. Maybe some people do mean that someone’s decorating choices mar the face of the universe , but I don’t put them on the same level, myself. Sin is insane, it lacks rationality, it offends God, it hurts people, it can damn a soul, it can end a life, it is not some chatty thing. In general, I’d say it is not something taken lightly or given leeway.

What does hate mean to you? Is it not something firm, resolute, against, powerful? Do you mean an emotion or a decision? Do you mean an attitude?

 

[LittleDeb]

I would say that the only acts which can be utilized in homosexual behavior would be classed under the label of sodomy. As defined until the 70’s, these acts referred to any non-intercourse activity between two people. It did not specify that the activity must occur between two people of the same gender. These acts, because they fly in the face of anatomical natural law, are the defining element of homosexual behavior. Two men or two women who may love eachother but do not engage in sodomy would not be engaging in homosexual behavior. To separate the acts themselves, or worse, allow them for one group and not another defies logic, reason, and moral tradition.

I actually agree with you. The terms are terribly misleading and that is part of the problem. We have Catholic apologists trying to define activity using secular terms. I have disagreed with most of the definitions of the acts. The theologians who say that “anal sex” is fine between a man and a woman are being inconsistent and are using poor definitions. The truth is, “anal stimulation” might be fine while ‘rectal penetration’ is against the design of the human body. The rectum, both male and female, is not designed to be penetrated. Theologians who say a husband can do so to his wife are being inconsistent. Same body part same rules.

I have detailed this in other threads. The same rules apply to everyone. “Oral sex” is a secular term and therefore horribly defined. I have yet to see the research that says where the term first came into usage. Oral stimulation is different than oral sex. Anal stimulation (externally) is different from rectal penetration. On this one point, I can say yes I hate the act of rectal penetration. It is degrading to the human body. And when I use the term “degrading” in this context, I mean it literally degrades the rectum. Something degrading to a part of the body is degrading to the whole body. Since our bodies are not merely “vehicles for souls,” then anything that degrades the body degrades the soul.

A deep reading of Theology of the Body, not some of the commentators who have stated otherwise, will prove this to be a more consistent teaching.

 

[LittleDeb]

The human person is not the sum total of his actions. Regardless of what the gay activists would have us believe, it is imperative that we separate ourselves from our sinful actions. But the first step in succeeding at this is recognizing the sin itself. What you encounter (and me as well) is a group of people who have CHOSEN to identify themselves completely with their sin and remain willfully ignorant and stubbornly unrepentent. In the quest to justify this lifestyle choice, it is essential that they somehow convince you that they and their actions are one. We, as Catholics, know this is not true. We may lie, cheat, and steal, but we know that these are not the actions that define us as humans. If we seek the truth and keep an open heart, we are blessed to acknowledge our guilt, repent, and try harder to “be perfect as our heavenly Father is.”

Excellent post! I agree, BUT I still can’t apply it in the real world. I can’t count the number of times someone here has called me “homophobic.” I really laugh at that because of my actual problem as I have detailed it here. I don’t fear homosexuals at all!

Of course again the term is ridiculous. homo=same, phobic=fear. I fear same?? I am a woman. I have zero fear of women.

 

[Pug]

We may lie, cheat, and steal, but we know that these are not the actions that define us as humans.

Although the sins we have done do not change that we are humans, I do think they say something about us, unless we have repented. If I choose not to honor my marriage commitment and continue to not honor it, unless I repent, I think that choice says something about what I value in life, where my priorities lie. This will show itself in the other things I do or don’t do in my life (again, unless I change my mind and repent of the attitude).

You are quite right, though, that we are God’s children. He made us. Just because we sin does not change that we have dignity and meaning.

 

[blessedtoo]

I actually agree with you. The terms are terribly misleading and that is part of the problem. We have Catholic apologists trying to define activity using secular terms. I have disagreed with most of the definitions of the acts. The theologians who say that “anal sex” is fine between a man and a woman are being inconsistent and are using poor definitions. The truth is, “anal stimulation” might be fine while ‘rectal penetration’ is against the design of the human body. The rectum, both male and female, is not designed to be penetrated. Theologians who say a husband can do so to his wife are being inconsistent. Same body part same rules.

I have detailed this in other threads. The same rules apply to everyone. “Oral sex” is a secular term and therefore horribly defined. I have yet to see the research that says where the term first came into usage. Oral stimulation is different than oral sex. Anal stimulation (externally) is different from rectal penetration. On this one point, I can say yes I hate the act of rectal penetration. It is degrading to the human body. And when I use the term “degrading” in this context, I mean it literally degrades the rectum. Something degrading to a part of the body is degrading to the whole body. Since our bodies are not merely “vehicles for souls,” then anything that degrades the body degrades the soul.

A deep reading of Theology of the Body, not some of the commentators who have stated otherwise, will prove this to be a more consistent teaching.

Love you LittleDeb but I’m afraid I have to take issue with the semantics dance that has been perpetrated by lay theologians who have interpreted JP II’s TOB through the morally liberal lens of pop psychology and feminist influence.

Without getting too graphic, these acts, whether defined with the term “sex” or “stimulation”, still involve an independent sexual activity that is not procreative. For a Catholic perspective you don’t hear very often, try:

Unnatural sexual acts are immoral, not only because they are contrary to the natural law, but also because they are not open to life. Now in judging the morality of any sexual act, each act must be considered individually and separately. Some ethicists have tried to undermine or contradict the definitive teaching of the Church (that contraception is always immoral) by combining an act that is open to life with other sexual acts that are not open to life. But the Church has rejected such formulations, instead requiring each act to be evaluated on its own.
catholicplanet.com/CCSE/marriage-sins.htm

 

[LittleDeb]

Love you LittleDeb but I’m afraid I have to take issue with the semantics dance that has been perpetrated by lay theologians who have interpreted JP II’s TOB through the morally liberal lens of pop psychology and feminist influence.

Without getting too graphic, these acts, whether defined with the term “sex” or “stimulation”, still involve an independent sexual activity that is not procreative. For a Catholic perspective you don’t hear very often, try:

I still think we agree. I refer to kissing as “oral stimulation.” I often disagree with others on this board who try to separate the acts. There is foreplay and then there is intercourse. Foreplay is an integral part of intercourse. The male and female body both need foreplay to prepare. Any act that goes beyond prep is a separate act. I have had to explain that to my own husband. Other acts are not unitive. I agree, it is hard to clarify while remaining PG-13.

The phrase I disagree with and find to be inconsistent is, “oral sex as part of foreplay leading up to the conjugal act…” It is completely inconsistent in light of the teaching on same sex acts. Foreplay is foreplay. “Oral sex” is not foreplay. The last time I argued this point on this board I was lambasted by a Catholic woman with the liberal stuff you are referring.

One disclaimer note: I do believe that there is no part of a spouse’s body that is off-limits to a touch or oral contact. We are 2 who have become 1. My body is his and his body is mine. On that, we might still disagree.

Why I point all this out is because of the inconsistency in regards to same sex acts, and self indulgent opposite sex acts. For many people the “feeling” of the foreplay is the goal. The “deposit” is merely a legalistic concession. TOB teaches something much more unitive than that. The best wording I can come up with in this context is that the (female) same sex act of an “empty climax” is the same as an opposite sex act of an “empty climax” for the female. That is what is inconsistent with TOB’s teaching of a complete and full reunion of eros and agape.

Clear as mud?

 

[hopelessrom_grl]

I think homosexuality is a sin…but I don’t think it’s a mortal sin

then again…is it really the victims fault?..I have friends who are gay and they ARE Catholic…but I don’t condemm them, I pray for them

 

[LittleDeb]

I think homosexuality is a sin…but I don’t think it’s a mortal sin

then again…is it really the victims fault?..I have friends who are gay and they ARE Catholic…but I don’t condemm them, I pray for them

I think for clarification. The acts are objectively a mortal sin (separates us completely from God) What is only known by God is how culpable a particular person is.

Welcome to the forums!

 

[Jestocost]

Well, I guess I don’t have any beef with what homosexuals do in bed if the Church has ruled that it is perfectly licit for married heterosexuals to do the same things. Seems rather arbitrary of a distinction really.

I’m having a little trouble understanding this attitude. What of stimulation using the hands. Is that forbidden as marital forplay? Is it permissible for homosexuals? If the answer to both is no, isn’t that the exact same arbitrary distinction?

I can understand opposition to oral and anal sex even in marriage, based on reasons similar to that of contraception, but equating it with homosexuality?

 

[estesbob]

That it is a mortal sin, nothing more or less. The decision as to whether someone goes to hell is God’s. If or when the sinner obtains absolution is not mine to know unless, maybe I’m his confessor. Therefore it stands to reason that I can’t know if any individual (homosexual or not) is hellbound.

We are not talking about a specific individaul here. We are talking in general about whether one who commits a mortal sin continuosly and without repentance is hellbound-the answer is yes.

 

[estesbob]

Did I not already agree with that? But the Church also says that contraception and fornication are mortal sins. Last I checked there were not degrees of mortal sin as though one mortal sin was worse than another. You never seem to listen to what I post.

Who said there were?, if you would like to start a thread about contraception or heterosexual fornication go ahead. we are talking aboout the sin of homosexual behavior here.

 

[estesbob]

Then what exactly is oral and anal sex? Why is it okay between a married partners? I don’t think it should be. It is still sodomy.

Homosexual behavior refers to no specific sexual; act but rather to ANY sexual act between members of the same sex.

 

[estesbob]

Excellent points that should help keep holier-than-thou attitudes in check. Thanks.

And the point is?

 

[LittleDeb]

Homosexual behavior refers to no specific sexual; act but rather to ANY sexual act between members of the same sex.

I agree in theory. But what about when a homosexual refers to “affection?” I have encountered a few people who say that they are not sexual acts but merely “acts of affection.” I know they are playing a semantics game, and they are truly mislabeling it, but do they have a point? Are some homosexuals chaste sexually but still affectionate? eg. the acts done in public.

I guess my question is, since the kiss my husband gives me as he leaves for work in the morning is in no way really sexual, are they right that some acts are really “acts of affection?”

 

[agangbern]

Did I not already agree with that? But the Church also says that contraception and fornication are mortal sins. Last I checked there were not degrees of mortal sin as though one mortal sin was worse than another. You never seem to listen to what I post.

I do not know what contraception and fornication has to do with homosexual acts here. Acts of contraception and fornication are to be hated too! Their presence does not in any way make homosexual acts any better. Maybe others would like a thread also about contraception and fornication?

 

[agangbern]

I agree in theory. But what about when a homosexual refers to “affection?” I have encountered a few people who say that they are not sexual acts but merely “acts of affection.” I know they are playing a semantics game, and they are truly mislabeling it, but do they have a point? Are some homosexuals chaste sexually but still affectionate? eg. the acts done in public.

I guess my question is, since the kiss my husband gives me as he leaves for work in the morning is in no way really sexual, are they right that some acts are really “acts of affection?”

May I share opinion. If their action is simply like that, “affection”, no sex desire ever for the same gender, then let us not label them as homosexual at all. For, in that case, they contradict the meaning of the word “homosexual”.

 

[Pug]

Are some homosexuals chaste sexually but still affectionate? eg. the acts done in public.

I guess my question is, since the kiss my husband gives me as he leaves for work in the morning is in no way really sexual, are they right that some acts are really “acts of affection?”

I think some of this has to depend on the person and their culture and how they interact with their culture. Some men kiss other men on a regular basis in certain cultures. They even walk down the street arm in arm. So, it could just be affection, and not semantics in that particular case.

But in my culture, when you kiss your spouse on the way out the door, it is often an action reserved to a spouse (or a child). You are right, it is not sexual, but it is also not unrelated to whom is going out the door. A person easily would *never *do it to a friend. I guess I’m saying it could be non-sexual affection, but still be affection that normally is only directed to a spouse or potential spouse in their culture.

So I think you are raising an interesting question. Does it matter if people who are not married and cannot become so still act entirely like they are married in their actions (leaving out strictly sexual actions)?

 

[goofyjim]

Homosexual behavior refers to no specific sexual; act but rather to ANY sexual act between members of the same sex.

You dance around the question. If a specific act such as oral sex is wrong between two members of the same gender it should be wrong for a married couple as well. Otherwise there is a double standard and we are forbidding it solely upon the basis that the people involved are of the same gender.