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

[neuro_nurse]

Other than his mom sinners were the only people he could have hung out with…

Exactly!

 

[neuro_nurse]

Were the apostles unrepentent? Did they persist in their sin?

Peter knew that Jesus was the Son of God. Matthew 16:16

Peter knew that Jesus would deny before the Father anyone who denied him before men. Matthew 10:33

I think you know where this is going.

Are we really repentant sinners?

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” Matthew 5:21-22

Or do we persist in our sins?

 

[Nagoda]

as someone who is queer and devoutly catholic, id like to have me say. when i say queer i mean i like both guys and girls. i like girls more than i do guys so straight, gay or bi doesnt really describe me in my sexual orientation. queer seems to be a good umbrella term to use. i am also committed to chastity in this regard. just because i say im queer don’t mean im sexually active (on both sides o’ the board). im savin that gift for me wife later on in my life when im married.

anywhoo, i had a big long talk with my priest today. i went through my struggles with trying to stay chaste and thinking about a guy im really attracted to and masturbation. i was so frustrated i said im not sure i can accept the church’s teaching and tried every which way to rationalize it, but my priest eventually got me to accept the call to chastity and to keep on at it. i dont think the scriptures speak on loving monogamous homosexual relations, it does however speak on lust, rape, idol worship, temple prostitution and regular prostitution in regards to same sex relationships (its very specific in tis historical context on these things). but reason in the church is also part of how she forms her teachings. are loving monogamous homosexual relations sinful? ive come to the conclusion that they might be and the church may very well be right. im going to essentially “shelve” them and leave it up to God to answer me in heaven. i think chasitity, however irrational it may seem to my desires, is the safest course here. i dont want to play with fire and possibly get myself burned if its a sin. that said i have a lot of gay friends and they know me views. i still hang with em and pray for em and the rest of me friends who reject god (im not saying all my gay friend who are actvie reject god, i know of at elast 2 who dont and are devoutly catholic in spite of the very possible sin they might be commiting). i just ask that jesus can save em all eventually. we play games and walk a very thin line here when we try to rationalize. the church could VERY WELL be right.

sometimes i wish there was a saint for people with SSA who choose to live chastily. the vatican should appoint someone… or find a case of a catholic who was devouted to chastity in this regard and canonize em.

as for alternatives to this regard that dont involve genital relations all i can say is this: guys and girls you can direct your sexual energies elsewhere. guys take your attraction to men and focus it on a deep, initmate (not sexual!) friendship with jesus. girls, you can do the same for the holy spirit (the holy spirit can be understood as God’s feminine side, aka the Sophia, divine wisdom, not in the gnositc sense though). uniting ourselves in love with God’s male and female aspects can bring us so much closer to it and find a legitimate way to deal with SSA.

now all we need is a saint…

 

[agangbern]

Peter knew that Jesus was the Son of God. Matthew 16:16

Peter knew that Jesus would deny before the Father anyone who denied him before men. Matthew 10:33

I think you know where this is going.

Are we really repentant sinners?

Or do we persist in our sins?

To repent is to make a “U-Turn” from our sins. Whatever one’s reason for making the “U-turn”, be it the knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God, or the fear that Jesus would deny an unrepentant sinner before the Father, the reason would almost not matter to man for he does not read the heart of another. The reason matters to God only. What is important to man is “make a u-turn from sins.”

 

[agangbern]

i dont think the scriptures speak on loving monogamous homosexual relations, it does however speak on lust, rape, idol worship, temple prostitution and regular prostitution in regards to same sex relationships (its very specific in tis historical context on these things). but reason in the church is also part of how she forms her teachings. are loving monogamous homosexual relations sinful? ive come to the conclusion that they might be and the church may very well be right. im going to essentially “shelve” them and leave it up to God to answer me in heaven.

“Loving monogamous homosexual relations”! What a combination of words! But try to dissect that phrase and discover whether that indeed could have objective reality.

You said you have come to the conclusion that homosexual relations “might be” sinful. How I wish you are sure about it, no “might be”. Anyway, the following might help to remove your “might be”,
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterer nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1Cor 6:9-10).
Many posters have already quoted this passage, and I just repeat it here specially for you.

 

[estesbob]

“Loving monogamous homosexual relations”! What a combination of words! But try to dissect that phrase and discover whether that indeed could have objective reality.

You said you have come to the conclusion that homosexual relations “might be” sinful. How I wish you are sure about it, no “might be”. Anyway, the following might help to remove your “might be”,
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterer nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1Cor 6:9-10).
Many posters have already quoted this passage, and I just repeat it here specially for you.

I guess we read his post different.y. my take was that he admited he had problems with Church teachings on Homosexuality but accepts them anyway. that is exatly where i was at with contraception 10 year ago.

 

[Nagoda]

“Loving monogamous homosexual relations”! What a combination of words! But try to dissect that phrase and discover whether that indeed could have objective reality.

You said you have come to the conclusion that homosexual relations “might be” sinful. How I wish you are sure about it, no “might be”. Anyway, the following might help to remove your “might be”,
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterer nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1Cor 6:9-10).
Many posters have already quoted this passage, and I just repeat it here specially for you.

ok the problem with that translation is there is no word for homosexual in greek. the king james version correctsly translates it as caedimites. a caedimite was a prostitute, a sugar daddy if you will who gave his “offender” gifts in exchange for sexual acts. sometimes the offenders in greek society were little boys. but not always. so here we have a case of prostitution and possibly pedophilia. if you want a catholic agreement with this, here’s how its translated in the NAB, straight from the Vatican website, along with the Bishops’ commentary:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor
robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Bishoops’ commentary:

The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in ⇒ Romans 1:26-27; ⇒ 1 Tim 1:10.

based on this context, i think a very disturbing question is: is St. Paul saying that child prostitutes are going to Hell? They’re children, they wouldn’t know better and they are forced into these situations…

 

[blessedtoo]

as someone who is queer and devoutly catholic, id like to have me say. when i say queer i mean i like both guys and girls. i like girls more than i do guys so straight, gay or bi doesnt really describe me in my sexual orientation. queer seems to be a good umbrella term to use. i am also committed to chastity in this regard. just because i say im queer don’t mean im sexually active (on both sides o’ the board). im savin that gift for me wife later on in my life when im married.

God bless you and welcome! You are truly among friends. Many of us here are also walking the path of chastity as individuals who struggle with same sex attraction. We do it one day at a time with oodles of grace from God. He is generous to those who seek to do His will!

anywhoo, i had a big long talk with my priest today. i went through my struggles with trying to stay chaste and thinking about a guy im really attracted to and masturbation. i was so frustrated i said im not sure i can accept the church’s teaching and tried every which way to rationalize it, but my priest eventually got me to accept the call to chastity and to keep on at it. i dont think the scriptures speak on loving monogamous homosexual relations, it does however speak on lust, rape, idol worship, temple prostitution and regular prostitution in regards to same sex relationships (its very specific in tis historical context on these things). but reason in the church is also part of how she forms her teachings. are loving monogamous homosexual relations sinful? ive come to the conclusion that they might be and the church may very well be right. im going to essentially “shelve” them and leave it up to God to answer me in heaven. i think chasitity, however irrational it may seem to my desires, is the safest course here. i dont want to play with fire and possibly get myself burned if its a sin. that said i have a lot of gay friends and they know me views. i still hang with em and pray for em and the rest of me friends who reject god (im not saying all my gay friend who are actvie reject god, i know of at elast 2 who dont and are devoutly catholic in spite of the very possible sin they might be commiting). i just ask that jesus can save em all eventually. we play games and walk a very thin line here when we try to rationalize. the church could VERY WELL be right.

The Church IS right. You may depend on it. And God bless your priest for speaking the truth and helping to save your soul. Here is a link you may find helpful.
stonewallrevisited.com/issues/theo.html#script2

sometimes i wish there was a saint for people with SSA who choose to live chastily. the vatican should appoint someone… or find a case of a catholic who was devouted to chastity in this regard and canonize em.

Dear friend, clearly there is a vacancy! Strive to fill it!

 

[Janet_S]

sometimes i wish there was a saint for people with SSA who choose to live chastily. the vatican should appoint someone… or find a case of a catholic who was devouted to chastity in this regard and canonize em.

I’m sure the Church will do this soon. I’m looking forward to it.

Maybe you can pray to Oscar Wilde. He will certainly never be a canonized saint, but he probably is in heaven. He converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.

 

[TMC]

Same one as you most likely.

Did they become best buds? Did he drop buy every Friday thereafter to chat with her about her five lovers? He spoke to her, he admonished her, he converted her. Was she still a sinner? Of course. But a repentent one.

Sorry. He didn’t go to “eat and drink” with the tax collectors. That is truly an ancillary point to the story, don’t you think? He went to spread the good news, to convert hearts, to speak to them about their sins. And what happened? They repented. Do you think that if they had rejected Him, laughed at Him and called Him a fool and continued in their sinfulness He would have returned every Friday night just to “hang” with them?

Is that what you are doing when you “hang with sinners”? Is that what any of us do when we continue to maintain friendships with unrepentent and closed hearted people? Let’s call it what it is, shall we? Christ did not “hang” with sinners - certainly not in the cowardly way that many of us do (myself included). He MINISTERED to sinners, He converted sinners, He admonished sinners.

The parts from Matthew to Revelations.

Maybe we define “hang out” differently or it has some bad connotation to you that it does not to me. I see nothing “cowardly” about hanging out with sinners. I agree that He ministered, converted, admonished, etc. Maybe the difference is this – do you mean that He sort of ‘held his nose’ and endured the company of the sinners? Is the difference that “hang out” implies friendship and enjoyment? If so, we do differ a bit.

I think Jesus enjoyed the company of sinners, not because they were sinners, or because of their sins, but just because He loved people. So He spent time with them and was able to love them and enjoy being with them for who they were, while simultaneously ministering to them and helping them to overcome their flaws and be the best people they could.

I’m certainly not trying to suggest that He was like a gang member that knows steaing is wrong but just stays in the car instead of saying “Guys we are not going to do this.” To me “hang out” does not imply that He went along with or approved of (or ignored) sinful actions, but that He spent time with sinners because He really liked them, despite their sins.

 

[TMC]

sometimes i wish there was a saint for people with SSA who choose to live chastily. the vatican should appoint someone… or find a case of a catholic who was devouted to chastity in this regard and canonize em.

Consider Father Mychal Judge. When the furor over the public disclosure the he was gay dies down, I believe the Fransicans will nominate him.

 

[blessedtoo]

Consider Father Mychal Judge. When the furor over the public disclosure the he was gay dies down, I believe the Fransicans will nominate him.

If it is true that he departed from Church teaching when ministering to homosexuals, then I suspect canonization would be improbable.

 

[agangbern]

ok the problem with that translation is there is no word for homosexual in greek. the king james version correctsly translates it as caedimites. a caedimite was a prostitute, a sugar daddy if you will who gave his “offender” gifts in exchange for sexual acts. sometimes the offenders in greek society were little boys. but not always. so here we have a case of prostitution and possibly pedophilia. if you want a catholic agreement with this, here’s how its translated in the NAB, straight from the Vatican website, along with the Bishops’ commentary:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor **practicing homosexuals **
nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor
robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Bishoops’ commentary:

The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the “cupbearer of the gods,” whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in ⇒ Romans 1:26-27; ⇒ 1 Tim 1:10.

based on this context, i think a very disturbing question is: is St. Paul saying that child prostitutes are going to Hell? They’re children, they wouldn’t know better and they are forced into these situations…

The word homosexual is right there in the translation you gave. I highlighted it so that you may see it clearly. We are talking about homosexuals not of prostitutes. You seem to think that child prostitute and homosexual are one and the same.

 

[Nagoda]

There is no word for homosexual in the greek language is what i said. the bishops commentary here clearly states that the words used in the original greek mauscripts are words relating to homosexual prostitution and pedophilia, not in general terms. my point is St. Paul is speaking for a very specific case and he is not generalizing here, and his choice of words in the koine greek prove that. to translate it simply as homosexual without explaining its proper context (and the Bishops here have done otherwise in their commentary) would be incorrect and would not convery the specifics of the original text’s meaning.

 

[agangbern]

There is no word for homosexual in the greek language is what i said. the bishops commentary here clearly states that the words used in the original greek mauscripts are words relating to homosexual prostitution and pedophilia, not in general terms. my point is St. Paul is speaking for a very specific case and he is not generalizing here, and his choice of words in the koine greek prove that. to translate it simply as homosexual without explaining its proper context (and the Bishops here have done otherwise in their commentary) would be incorrect and would not convery the specifics of the original text’s meaning.

You emphasized that there is no word for homosexual in greek, and then you proceeded to talk about child prostitutes which is not the topic of this thread. Were you not implying then that homosexual and child prostitutes are one and the same? Is child prostitute the one you refer as proper context of homosexual?

 

[agangbern]

. the king james version correctsly translates it as caedimites. a caedimite was a prostitute, a sugar daddy if you will who gave his “offender” gifts in exchange for sexual acts. sometimes the offenders in greek society were little boys. but not always. so here we have a case of prostitution and possibly pedophilia.

Who has the authority to declare that the King James version is the correct translation? The Church did not declare it to be so. We can read the passage once again. If homosexuals there means prostitutes, then it would have been a redundancy of words because the word that preceded it before “nor” is prostitutes.

 

[rpp]

Nagoda, and Agangbern, You know, it does not really matter what the bishop’s commentary is on that particular passage. (I wish you had provided a link.) His somments are not magisterial nor are they authoritative…

The unchanged and unchangeable Church teaching from Magisterial and authoritative sources is that homosexual activity is gravely sinful and is one of the very few sins that “cry to heaven for justice”.

For a more thorough discussion of this, I recommend Love and Responsibilityby Karol Wojtia. Also, Man and Woman: He Created Them: by the same author writing under the name of Pope John Paul II. These discuss these very issues and are authoritative in nature. They are also quite readable.

 

[Nagoda]

please read the bishops commentary which is in agreement with the king james translation which i posted. if the holy spirit is guiding the bishops when they are gathered together, and the church has declared the NAB free of all errors, you will see that they say that the words used in the greek text refer to boy prostitutes and the men who engaged in pedophilac acts with them. i am not equating homosexuality with prostitution nor am i equating it with pedophelia. i am simply saying that paul is referring to homosexual prostitution and pedophilia as a sin here and not the acts in general. the bishops’ commentary confirms this by pointing out his use of very specific words. if paul had wanted to comment on homosexual acts in general, even though there is no word for homosexual in the greek language, he could have used more general terms but he did not. he is using specific words because he is referring to the specific sin of homosexual pedophelia and prostitution, not in general terms. You will also note that the Bishops’ commentary mentions that Romans and Timothy also talks about this in similar situations.

 

[fix]

What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition…

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

 

[rpp]

please read the bishops commentary which is in agreement with the king james translation which i posted. if the holy spirit is guiding the bishops when they are gathered together, and the church has declared the NAB free of all errors, you will see that they say that the words used in the greek text refer to boy prostitutes and the men who engaged in pedophilac acts with them. i am not equating homosexuality with prostitution nor am i equating it with pedophelia. i am simply saying that paul is referring to homosexual prostitution and pedophilia as a sin here and not the acts in general. the bishops’ commentary confirms this by pointing out his use of very specific words. if paul had wanted to comment on homosexual acts in general, even though there is no word for homosexual in the greek language, he could have used more general terms but he did not. he is using specific words because he is referring to the specific sin of homosexual pedophelia and prostitution, not in general terms. You will also note that the Bishops’ commentary mentions that Romans and Timothy also talks about this in similar situations.

This is exemplary of someone seeing what they want to see.

I have never heard anyone claim that the NAB is free of error. That is both a bold and unsupportable statement. There are many problems with the KJV as well.

The commentary that you found is NOT authoritative. The condemnation of homosexual acts is consistent through all scripture and your conclusion from this commentary is not consistent with 2,000 of Christian theological exposition and 3,500 of Jewish theological exposition. To make your claim, you are going to need more than one ambiguous commentary about a single word in one verse of scripture.

Nagoda, you are making assertions, but not providing links for us to check them out. Please do not just cut and paste, give us the links as well.