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

[LittleDeb]

What is there to do except what I suggested above – pray, and show our gay sisters and brothers our charity and love?

Where do we go from here?

Actually I might be able to answer a few of your questions. Urban-hermit sends his regrets. Time at work commitments are keeping him from posting.

The reason for this particular thread is actually to clarify definition and our particular understanding of Church teaching. The OP, as a rule, is always about how to approach those with SSA in love and charity. A perusal of his posts will give a ton of links for specific suggestions.

You will see if you click on the poll results that I, in fact answered, “You have rocked my world…” UH’s rather harsh wording of “hate” was to show the stark contrast to “love.” Another thread on “gays” that recently exceeded 1000 posts and PMs with me and some other posters partially inspired this thread.

I think his point and what I am beginning to understand is that our hatred of the act is directly proportionate to how deeply we can love someone in their sinfulness. If there is even a glimmer of not hating the act, then you can’t really love someone apart from that act.

 

[neuro_nurse]

Can we pleeeeease return to the topic of this thread?

It is my understanding that Church’s teaching on homosexual acts is very clear - the matter can easily be settled by reading the relevant sections of the Catechism.

So, what is the topic that we have diverged from – or rather, in what ways has my inquiry distracted you from the matter at hand?

My questions and my concerns have been sincere, and although I am frequently guilty of tangential thought, I believe that my questions are relevant to the question posed at the beginning of this thread.

I appreciate the sincere responses to my questions.

Apparently, I have a different perspective than some of the people who post here. You are free to disagree with me. You don’t have to read my posts, you don’t have to respond.

 

[rpp]

Can we pleeeeeeease return to the topic of this thread without sniping at anyone.

 

[TMC]

I think his point and what I am beginning to understand is that our hatred of the act is directly proportionate to how deeply we can love someone in their sinfulness. If there is even a glimmer of not hating the act, then you can’t really love someone apart from that act.

Huh? This makes no sense to me at all. The more I hate homosexuality, the more I love homosexuals? It seems to me that you are saying that the love Christians have for sinners is based on pity for their condition and cannot be based on an actual love for them as a person. I love sinful people for the same reasons that I love holy people. The love of sinner is not reliant on the hate of the sin, that makes no sense to me at all. I would agree that if we love someone we will help them overcome sin, rather than help them continue in it. But the depth of my love is not connected to some revulsion of their sin. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

 

[LittleDeb]

Huh? This makes no sense to me at all. The more I hate homosexuality, the more I love homosexuals? It seems to me that you are saying that the love Christians have for sinners is based on pity for their condition and cannot be based on an actual love for them as a person. I love sinful people for the same reasons that I love holy people. The love of sinner is not reliant on the hate of the sin, that makes no sense to me at all. I would agree that if we love someone we will help them overcome sin, rather than help them continue in it. But the depth of my love is not connected to some revulsion of their sin. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

Maybe an example could make it clearer. I fall back on my own sinful promiscuous past for insight. I found that during my days mired in that particular sin that a lot of people said they “loved me” or “wanted what was best for me” in regards to living a happy life. But I found that those people who said that what I was doing wasn’t “that bad, you could be doing worse things” were really not that interested in my welfare or if I was going to heaven or not.

Looking back, they were afraid to judge a sin for fear of judging me, a sinner. They feared judging my heart rather than discerning that my actions were bad. I am finding that I too, was a afraid to judge an action as completely,totally, utterly, sinful. Until I was able to do that, I could not escape my sin of promiscuity.

Mortal sin is mortal sin. Those who claimed to love me while not completely hating that mortal sin weren’t doing me any favors. They were not loving the sinner and hating the sin. They were sort of loving me while sort of justifying my sin. It isn’t about depth of love. I used the word deep before but that isn’t what I meant. That is an emotional response to the issue. That, in fact is what has paralyzed my response on sin. Emotionally, I want to “warm fuzzy” love someone in this state. That kind of love is what loses the battle of morality. I think I more mean that to love someone totally (not deeply) we have to totally hate the sin. Sin cannot exist in the presence of real agape love.

clear as mud? :ehh:

 

[blessedtoo]

My trouble is with the political implications associated with the subject – I see it as a diversion away from other problems that our pollical system should be addressing – it’s a hot-button issue that attracts a lot of attention and easily overshadows other social problems, some of which I mentioned that are particularly concerning to me.

This is not a political forum nor a political thread. We are discussing this from a Catholic moral and ethical perspective. There are many other sub-forums which discuss the topics which seem to hold your interest. That’s the beauty of CAF - something for everyone. The general rule would be to refrain from criticizing an OP’s choice of topic as being less important or superfluous.

I love being a Catholic because of the social teachings of the Church. When the Protestants busy themselves with talking about faith, charity, and morality, Catholics are getting our hands dirty *doing something *about it!

So for me, matters of faith always come down to ‘what am I going to DO about it?’

What is there to do except what I suggested above – pray, and show our gay sisters and brothers our charity and love?

Since you are a new member, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the myriad of reasons people come to CAF. I started visiting here a few years back to learn about my faith. Some folks come here to brainstorm ideas about how to best defend the Church against the culture that wishes to see it abolished from public life. Some folks come here to share news and invite people to participate in action programs to help defeat those who would undermine traditional values. All these reasons are equally valid.

If you spend some time perusing the threads here, you will see many ways that Catholics can take action in their parishes, their communities and their local governments. Prayer is always the first line of defense as is providing a living witness to Christ. But we are also called to evangelization and action. There are countless ways to make a difference.

Each one of us is called to ministry. Some of us, like myself and the OP in particular, feel called to evangelize the active homosexuals still living apart from the truth because we ourselves were once lost in that lifestyle. Many of my loved ones still are. Perhaps your vocation is different and you are called to ministry with the poor. That’s wonderful as we need many different types of Catholics in many different kinds of ministries. But is does not elevate us as Christians to criticize or judge one another’s vocation or efforts to help spread the truth of Christ.

 

[blessedtoo]

I think his point and what I am beginning to understand is that our hatred of the act is directly proportionate to how deeply we can love someone in their sinfulness. If there is even a glimmer of not hating the act, then you can’t really love someone apart from that act.

May I chime in?

Folks get into trouble when they are unable to separate homosexual behavior (or their acts) from the homosexual himself. Because of the aggressive efforts of the gay activists over the last 35 years to convince society that they and their sexual acts are ONE and inseperable, confusion now reigns even among Catholics. We say things like, “they are born that way and can’t help it,” or “why should they be denied love”, etc. We attempt to apply to these people a new rule that does not exist for any other sin. We do not say, for example, that a 16 year old who is clearly hormonally compelled to masturbate SHOULD be allowed because it’s in his genes or it’s human nature. We do not say that those who are addicted to pornography should get a pass because they are predisposed to addictive behavior or can’t control themselves. We don’t approve of alcoholics who drink themselves into a stupor simply because their brain chemistry is possibly different from ours. We don’t do this because we are able to separate the sinful ACTS from the person himself.

The point of this thread, if I may speak for the OP, is to encourage folks to really think about what they are supposed to despise as evil - the acts - and separate them from the individual. Active homosexuals would have us believe that these two things can not be separated thus asserting their position that to encourage chastity would be inhumane. As human beings, we are not defined by the activites we do with our genitals. We are not enslaved by sexual impulse or orientation, either homosexual or heterosexual. Those that would have us believe that sexual impulses MUST be fulfilled have missed the mark and this topic, IMO, is attempting to address that misunderstanding.

 

[agangbern]

First, at no point have I denied that homosexual acts are a sin.

That’s admirable of you!

Second, it has been my experience that many people who claim to be promoting God’s agenda are really only promoting their own.

I hope your experience did not blind you of the presence of many other people too who sincerely promote God’s agenda without regard of their own selfish agenda.

I’ll repeat a question I posed on another thread: how is it that homosexuality should take precedence over war, poverty, disease, and starvation? Don’t we have better things to do with out time and effort?

There is time for everything under the heavens. It is easier to take things one at a time. If you want to discuss about war, poverty, disease and starvation, go on, start a thread about them. But you don’t tell people here to stop talking about homosexual acts and instead talk about war, etc.

In the grand scheme of things, how many people are hurt when two people engage in a homosexual act?

Better ask Him about it. For it is to Him primarily that homosexual acts are revolting. Homosexual acts violate the eternal law. It is not a matter of how many are hurt or how many are benefiting. It is a matter of what is pleasing to the eyes of God.

How many people are hurt when two people – married people, with children – engage in adultery?

How many children have died in Iraq since the invasion?

How many children die every year from diseases associated with malnutrition?

(These are rhetorical questions – I could easily find the answers)

To me, it’s not a matter of whether or not homosexuality is a sin (I’ve never said it isn’t), it’s a matter of priorities.

Peace!

So, what you are trying to say here above? Adultery, war in Iraq, diseases, they are challenges of the times too. I hope you don’t imagine that those who participate here in CAF are not doing anything apart from the internet regarding those challenges.

 

[LittleDeb]

May I chime in?

Folks get into trouble when they are unable to separate homosexual behavior (or their acts) from the homosexual himself. Because of the aggressive efforts of the gay activists over the last 35 years to convince society that they and their sexual acts are ONE and inseperable, confusion now reigns even among Catholics. We say things like, “they are born that way and can’t help it,” or “why should they be denied love”, etc. We attempt to apply to these people a new rule that does not exist for any other sin. We do not say, for example, that a 16 year old who is clearly hormonally compelled to masturbate SHOULD be allowed because it’s in his genes or it’s human nature. We do not say that those who are addicted to pornography should get a pass because they are predisposed to addictive behavior or can’t control themselves. We don’t approve of alcoholics who drink themselves into a stupor simply because their brain chemistry is possibly different from ours. We don’t do this because we are able to separate the sinful ACTS from the person himself.

The point of this thread, if I may speak for the OP, is to encourage folks to really think about what they are supposed to despise as evil - the acts - and separate them from the individual. Active homosexuals would have us believe that these two things can not be separated thus asserting their position that to encourage chastity would be inhumane. As human beings, we are not defined by the activites we do with our genitals. We are not enslaved by sexual impulse or orientation, either homosexual or heterosexual. Those that would have us believe that sexual impulses MUST be fulfilled have missed the mark and this topic, IMO, is attempting to address that misunderstanding.

And an excellent chime it was! That is where I am trying to go with this. That justifying a sinful act comes from not separating the sin from the sinner. There are no worse acts than mortal sin. ALL mortal sin. Since I haven’t been in the shoes of SSA, I would tend to let it pass as, “not my cross so I can’t judge.”

My post was pointing out that by my attitude I wasn’t doing any favors for my friends with SSA. Just as those people who justified my promiscuous behavior did me no favors. They didn’t truly hate my sin of promiscuity.

I think I am asking and answering my own question. Is it possible to love someone apart from their sin if you don’t truly hate the sin? The answer seems to be ‘no.’ Although, that word ‘hate’ is still hard for me to type. I still get hung up on the emotional definition of it.

 

[fix]

My trouble is with the political implications associated with the subject – I see it as a diversion away from other problems that our pollical system should be addressing – it’s a hot-button issue that attracts a lot of attention and easily overshadows other social problems, some of which I mentioned that are particularly concerning to me.

It is not only a political issue but a moral issue that directly affects families. It is hot-button because young children and the correct ordering of society are involved. People mistakenly see these issues as about privacy and as having no impact on culture. I think that view is held because we do not place appropriate empasis on conscience or on the improtance of salvation.

I love being a Catholic because of the social teachings of the Church. When the Protestants busy themselves with talking about faith, charity, and morality, Catholics are getting our hands dirty *doing something *about it!

As the last Pope said there is no upper limit to the moral law, but there is a lower limit.

So for me, matters of faith always come down to ‘what am I going to DO about it?’

Prayer and action. That varies by person and circumstance.

What is there to do except what I suggested above – pray, and show our gay sisters and brothers our charity and love?

Love and charity include sharing what is true with others. Love never confirms any of us in our sin. As citizens we have some obligation to inform the public discourse about these issues.

Where do we go from here?

That depends on the person. Perhaps some person reading these discussions will decide to learn what the Church actually teaches. That may be a person running for public office, or a schoool teacher, or a nurse, or anyone who may be in a position to influence others.

 

[TMC]

And an excellent chime it was! That is where I am trying to go with this. That justifying a sinful act comes from not separating the sin from the sinner. There are no worse acts than mortal sin. ALL mortal sin. Since I haven’t been in the shoes of SSA, I would tend to let it pass as, “not my cross so I can’t judge.”

My post was pointing out that by my attitude I wasn’t doing any favors for my friends with SSA. Just as those people who justified my promiscuous behavior did me no favors. They didn’t truly hate my sin of promiscuity.

I think I am asking and answering my own question. Is it possible to love someone apart from their sin if you don’t truly hate the sin? The answer seems to be ‘no.’ Although, that word ‘hate’ is still hard for me to type. I still get hung up on the emotional definition of it.

I understand your point. I agree with it to a point. But I think it is possible to love a sinner without truly hating the sin. Maybe the word “hate” is the problem. Hate is an ugly thing, to me. When you hate the sin, often some of the hate rubs off on the sinner, too. What we call “love” is reduced to pity at best, and some kind of pseudo-benevolent vengence at worse. When I hear hate the sin and love the sinner I thing of Westboro and it disturbs me.

So although not as cute, maybe we should say “love the sinner, while helping to correct the sin” or “love the sinner without validating or approving of the sin”. Those aren’t really right, either, but hopefully you get my point.

 

[fix]

Q. 753. What is contrition, or sorrow for sin?
A. Contrition, or sorrow for sin, is a hatred of sin and a true grief of the soul for having offended God, with a firm purpose of sinning no more.
Q. 754. Give an example of how we should hate and avoid sin.
A. We should hate and avoid sin as one hates and avoids a poison that almost caused his death. We may not grieve over the death of our soul as we do over the death of a friend, and yet our sorrow may be true; because the sorrow for sin comes more from our reason than from our feelings.

On Contrition

 

[TMC]

Q. 753. What is contrition, or sorrow for sin?
A. Contrition, or sorrow for sin, is a hatred of sin and a true grief of the soul for having offended God, with a firm purpose of sinning no more.
Q. 754. Give an example of how we should hate and avoid sin.
A. We should hate and avoid sin as one hates and avoids a poison that almost caused his death

I love this definition of “hate of sin” because it fits what I think I have been saying. If I accidently drank Drano, I would certainly stay the heck away from Drano. If someone said “I think I’ll try me some of that Drano”, I would jump up and tell them not to in no uncertain terms. I wouldn’t feel the kind of “hate” for Drano that I have seen some express towards homosexuality, though. The hate discussed in the Baltimore Catechims is not a heated, violent emotion. Its a clear understanding of the harm, and a vigorous committment to avoiding the harm. Its not red-faced and spit-flying. Its concerned and committed. That’s how I see it.

 

[fix]

The OP seems to be using the word hate the way the catechism used it. Mostly when I see the emotion associated with this word, as you say above, I see it used by those who would nuance this sin. They attribute “hate” to those who point out the truth.

 

[agangbern]

I love this definition of “hate of sin” because it fits what I think I have been saying. If I accidently drank Drano, I would certainly stay the heck away from Drano. If someone said “I think I’ll try me some of that Drano”, I would jump up and tell them not to in no uncertain terms. I wouldn’t feel the kind of “hate” for Drano that I have seen some express towards homosexuality, though. The hate discussed in the Baltimore Catechims is not a heated, violent emotion. Its a clear understanding of the harm, and a vigorous committment to avoiding the harm. Its not red-faced and spit-flying. Its concerned and committed. That’s how I see it.

At least we now understand what we mean by “hate homosexual acts”.

 

[Pug]

I love this definition of “hate of sin” because it fits what I think I have been saying. If I accidently drank Drano, I would certainly stay the heck away from Drano. If someone said “I think I’ll try me some of that Drano”, I would jump up and tell them not to in no uncertain terms. I wouldn’t feel the kind of “hate” for Drano that I have seen some express towards homosexuality, though. The hate discussed in the Baltimore Catechims is not a heated, violent emotion. Its a clear understanding of the harm, and a vigorous committment to avoiding the harm. Its not red-faced and spit-flying. Its concerned and committed. That’s how I see it.

I think this is a nice summary comment. “Hate” here is not a violent emotion, as you say.

I do have to remark, in the spirit of the Clubhouse threads, that I ate some Drano last week. Actually, lye, to be specific. It is used in the making of German pretzels.

 

[neuro_nurse]

That may be a person running for public office, or a schoool teacher, or a nurse, or anyone who may be in a position to influence others.

My patients don’t get to vote for which nurse cares for them.

Not only for the legal prohibition, but I would be violating nursing ethics if I attempted to “influence” a client with regards to her or his sexual orientation.

As a nurse, I enjoy the opportunities I have to attend to my clients’ spiritual needs however, the bedside, literally or figuratively, is not the place for unwelcome evangelism.

While that might sound like a cop-out to you, I not only run the risk of losing my job, my license, and getting sued, but I also run the risk of failing in my duties and responsibilities to my clients as they are defined in my profession.

I strongly believe that my values and beliefs as a Catholic are an important aspect of my nursing care, but my ethical, legal, and moral obligations require me to use my judgment in how I apply those values and beliefs to my practice.

I see I’ve ruffled a few feathers here. It’s a dialog, and the way I see it, a dialog without some degree of dissent isn’t much of a dialog. As I wrote above, my questions and my concerns have been sincere, and I appreciate the sincere efforts a couple of people have made to respond to them.

A couple of people have noted an aversion to the word ‘hate’ in the original post. I have to say that I find the combination of the words ‘hate’ and ‘homosexuality’ in the same sentence to have dangerous connotations – but that’s my opinion and you are free to disagree with me.

 

[fix]

My patients don’t get to vote for which nurse cares for them.

Do you only interact with patients?

Not only for the legal prohibition, but I would be violating nursing ethics if I attempted to “influence” a client with regards to her or his sexual orientation.

Who said anything about that? Do you leave your faith at home when you work? I imagine in life you interact with different people in different settings. Not always at work.

As a nurse, I enjoy the opportunities I have to attend to my clients’ spiritual needs however, the bedside, literally or figuratively, is not the place for unwelcome evangelism.

Evangelism takes many forms. I am not suggesting you act inappropriately.

While that might sound like a cop-out to you, I not only run the risk of losing my job, my license, and getting sued, but I also run the risk of failing in my duties and responsibilities to my clients as they are defined in my profession.

Again, do you only interact with patients?

I strongly believe that my values and beliefs as a Catholic are an important aspect of my nursing care, but my ethical, legal, and moral obligations require me to use my judgment in how I apply those values and beliefs to my practice.

Great, no one said otherwise.

I see I’ve ruffled a few feathers here. It’s a dialog, and the way I see it, a dialog without some degree of dissent isn’t much of a dialog. As I wrote above, my questions and my concerns have been sincere, and I appreciate the sincere efforts a couple of people have made to respond to them.

It seems I have ruffled your feathers.

A couple of people have noted an aversion to the word ‘hate’ in the original post. I have to say that I find the combination of the words ‘hate’ and ‘homosexuality’ in the same sentence to have dangerous connotations – but that’s my opinion and you are free to disagree with me.

Catholics are called to be a sign of contradiction. Your point here proves to me that propaganda has had a strong influence in these discussions.

The point in that post to you was that as Catholics we should be informed and continue to pray and learn more about these issues. You asked me why this thread is needed. I pointed out why.

 

[neuro_nurse]

Do you only interact with patients?

Who said anything about that?

Your previous post seemed to me to suggest that I use my position as a nurse to influence others.

Within the boundaries of my profession, I really don’t see that it would be appropriate for me to attempt to ‘influence’ others with regard to their sexual orientation. There’s more to that than I’m willing to go into here.

Evangelism takes many forms. I am not suggesting you act inappropriately.

Absolutely, which is perhaps one of the things that has motivated me to participate in this thread.

It seems I have ruffled your feathers.

Nope, I enjoy a good argument!

Your point here proves to me that propaganda has had a strong influence in these discussions.

Whose propaganda? I have repeated a number of times that I do not disagree with the Church’s teachings on homosexual acts. My point here is in the practical application of those teachings.

Let me illustrate a point I think you can relate to: In college I was approached by several Protestant students, the so-called “God-Squad,” who told me I was going to hell because I didn’t have the same beliefs that they did. Now, I was a lot younger then and not as well prepared as I am now to defend my faith, so I think you can imagine the effect those exchanges had on me – it made me angry (now I would probably just tell them that they are mistaken and don’t really understand Catholic doctrine and leave it at that).

I suspect that most homosexuals do not share our beliefs that homosexual acts are sinful, just as I don’t accept certain Protestant’s beliefs that Catholics are going to hell, so that approach doesn’t seem to me to be the least bit effective.

Finally, as Dirty Harry said, “a man’s got to know his limitations,” and I don’t feel that evangelism is one of my strengths. As I understand St. Paul, maybe that’s just not one of my gifts.

Catholics are called to be a sign of contradiction.

Good, I think I can do that! The contradiction I wish for people to see in me is that their perceptions of Christians as intolerant are inaccurate.

 

[fix]

Your previous post seemed to me to suggest that I use my position as a nurse to influence others.

Within the boundaries of my profession, I really don’t see that it would be appropriate for me to attempt to ‘influence’ others with regard to their sexual orientation. There’s more to that than I’m willing to go into here.

That is not my intention.

Whose propaganda? I have repeated a number of times that I do not disagree with the Church’s teachings on homosexual acts. My point here is in the practical application of those teachings.

By propaganda I mean that popular culture equates Catholic teaching on this issue with hatred and violence toward persons.

Let me illustrate a point I think you can relate to: In college I was approached by several Protestant students, the so-called “God-Squad,” who told me I was going to hell because I didn’t have the same beliefs that they did. Now, I was a lot younger then and not as well prepared as I am now to defend my faith, so I think you can imagine the effect those exchanges had on me – it made me angry (now I would probably just tell them that they are mistaken and don’t really understand Catholic doctrine and leave it at that).

Yes, but I do not think anyone in this thread mentions walking up to strangers and telling them they are going to hell. I give folks more credit than that.

Finally, as Dirty Harry said, “a man’s got to know his limitations,” and I don’t feel that evangelism is one of my strengths. As I understand St. Paul, maybe that’s just not one of my gifts.

Not street corner preaching. Even acting by good example may be evangelizing.

Good, I think I can do that! The contradiction I wish for people to see in me is that their perceptions of Christians as intolerant are inaccurate.

That is a common perception. I agree we cannot come off to non Catholics simply as moralists. But, this thread seems directed specifically to Catholics and has generated interest and made me think more about the topic, hopefully in a deeper and richer way.