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

[Scottgun]

estesbob, thank you for this beautiful treasure from JP II.

Yes. Game, set, match.

 

[estesbob]

Yes. Game, set, match.

Off topic but a comment on the amazing technologies availabe today. I was able to acess the Vatican library from my laptop while going 70 miles an hour just south of Dumas Texas.and NO! I am not driving.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks Bob

POST-SYNODAL
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION
RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
OF JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
CLERGY AND FAITHFUL
ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE
IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY

In order that in the not too distant future abundant fruits may come from it, I invite you all to join me in turning to Christ’s heart, the eloquent sign of the divine mercy, the “propitiation for our sins,” “our peace and reconciliation,”(204) that we may draw from it an interior encouragement to hate sin and to be converted to God, and find in it the divine kindness which lovingly responds to human repentance.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

it says “interior” encouragement as opposed to the exterior

***ADDRESS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II ***
TO CATHOLIC ACTION CHILDREN
Saturday, 21 December 1996

The beautiful Christmas carol Tu scendi dalle stelle says: “Oh, how much it cost you to have loved me!”. The Son of God loved us, who offended him; we too must love those who offend us, and thus conquer evil with good.** To hate sin but to love the sinner**: this is the way to peace, the way that the Lord teaches us from the mystery of his birth

SAECULO EXEUNTE OCTAVO
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XII
ON THE EIGHTH CENTENARY OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF PORTUGAL
TO THE VENERABLE BROTHER, THE PATRIARCH OF LISBON,
THE ARCHBISHOPS, BISHIOPS AND OTHER ORDINARIES OF
PORTUGAL AND ITS OVERSEAS POSSESSIONS,
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE

1. Indeed the herald of evangelical truth must of necessity be a 12man of God not only because he has been divinely called, but also because he has vowed himself to Him fully and perpetually. “Truly” - as our predecessor Benedict XV teaches in the admirable apostolic letter Maximum illud - “he must be a man of God, who preaches God; he must hate sin, who commands to hate sin. More progress will be made in preaching the faith by example than by words, especially among infidels who are led by the senses rather than by reason.”[10]

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_13061940_saeculo-exeunte-octavo_en.html

---

I can give you 2,296 more examples from Vatican Documentsd if you wish.

It is a reference to a letter not a doctrine not a dogma, not catechism. By the way your reference is about the quality of candidates for missionary and priesthood and again is self directed not exterior hate. unfortunately I cannot yet find an english version of the original letter

 

[Texas_Roofer]

These are the same ding-dongs that caved in to pressure to remove homosexuality as a disorder from their books.
In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Thank you for reminding us “ding-dong” is the approprate disparging remark

em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

da·ta (dt, dt, dät) pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Computer Science Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3. Values derived from scientific experiments.

compling with data is usually not refered to as cavingd in to pressure to remove homosexuality.

 

[JReducation]

I can’t remember the number of the paragraph, but if you go the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The official teaching of the Church does not invite Catholics to hate either homosexual people or homosexual acts.

It does not use the word “hate”. It very clearly discusses that the homosexual act is disordered behaviour and morally wrong. But the word hatred is no where in the text.

As to homosexual people, the Cathechism encourages them to participate in the life of the Church and denounces any form of injustice against them. It encourages Christians to love them and be supportive of their spiritual and social progress. I would imagine that hate crimes fall under such injustices.

The Catholic position seems to be very clear. Homosexual behaviour is intrinsically wrong and homosexuals are children of God and part of our family. Two separate ideas. Neither uses the word hate.

A few years back the Bishops of the United States wrote a pastoral letter entitled, “Always Our Children.” They spoke to families of homosexual people about the importance of loving their homosexual children and siblings and of the importance of including them in family life. The Bishops did not endorse homosexual acts, but they did endorse justice and love.

We have to separate the person from the act. We also have to quote the Church correctly. Hate is not part of the Church’s vocabulary in this case or in too many cases.

Hatred, of any thing or any kind, hurts the person who hates more than it hurts the object of the hate. To reject and not engage in something that is wrong is enough and healthier, than hating.

Psychology has demonstrated time and again, that when we attach an emotion as strong as hatred to a behaviour, it automatically transfers over to the person who engages in the behaviour, just by association. Maybe this is why the Church, in her wisdom, does not use the word hatred in the Catechism, except when it denounces hatred itself. It is possible that the Church does not want us to hate the sinner by association.

Let’s not forget that the Catholic Church does engage in serious academic study before putting something on paper as official teaching. Such study usually includes all of the sciences that we have at hand, including behavioural psychology. From these it selects those hypotheses and conclusions that are consistent with Revelation.

 

[wifeandmomoftwo]

Thank you for reminding us “ding-dong” is the approprate disparging remark

em·pir·i·cal (m-pîr-kl)adj.
1.
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

da·ta (dt, dt, dät) pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)

1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Computer Science Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3. Values derived from scientific experiments.

compling with data is usually not refered to as cavingd in to pressure to remove homosexuality.

empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community
do you really think it was just the data that made them change things??

 

[estesbob]

Thanks Bob

it says “interior” encouragement as opposed to the exterior It is a reference to a letter not a doctrine not a dogma, not catechism. By the way your reference is about the quality of candidates for missionary and priesthood and again is self directed not exterior hate. unfortunately I cannot yet find an english version of the original letter

It has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Church exhorts us to hate sin. To conitnue toi claim otherwise makes you look foolish.

 

[blessedtoo]

The Catholic position seems to be very clear. Homosexual behaviour is intrinsically wrong and homosexuals are children of God and part of our family. Two separate ideas. Neither uses the word hate.

At least you’ve comprehended the difference between the act and the person who commits the act. Good for you.

A few years back the Bishops of the United States wrote a pastoral letter entitled, “Always Our Children.” They spoke to families of homosexual people about the importance of loving their homosexual children and siblings and of the importance of including them in family life. The Bishops did not endorse homosexual acts, but they did endorse justice and love.

And this letter has been roundly criticized by the Vatican and left without approval because of it’s confusing and ambivalent message.

We have to separate the person from the act. We also have to quote the Church correctly. Hate is not part of the Church’s vocabulary in this case or in too many cases.

So the problem here continues to be the individual’s inability to appropriately separate sin fron sinner. This does not make the Church culpable for our culture’s incapacity to understand this very basic doctrine. Hating sin is not only necessary but reasonable. It is scriptural and traditional. If we have issues with the word “hate” it is not because of inaccurate usage in this case. It is because our politically correct culture is unable to make the Christian distinction between sin and sinner. Haven’t we been told to be in the world but not of it?

Hatred, of any thing or any kind, hurts the person who hates more than it hurts the object of the hate. To reject and not engage in something that is wrong is enough and healthier, than hating.

Tell that to the great saints of our Church, who clearly hated sin so much they were willing to die for it. Would you die for something you felt was just objectionable or would it require a more passionate response?

Psychology has demonstrated time and again, that when we attach an emotion as strong as hatred to a behaviour, it automatically transfers over to the person who engages in the behaviour, just by association.

And our we called to be therapists or Christians? Since when do we put more trust in the psychiatric community than we do in our own Church, scripture and tradition? Our culture has problems with many of the words our Church uses. We could start a discussion about the word “compassion” as understood by Christians and the thread would probably exceed the thread limit. In our modern times, compassion is completely misunderstood and watered down to mean nothing more than “feelings”. Should we change our understanding of Church teachings based on how the world defines words?

Maybe this is why the Church, in her wisdom, does not use the word hatred in the Catechism, except when it denounces hatred itself. It is possible that the Church does not want us to hate the sinner by association.

There are countless topics not convered in the Cathechism. Perhaps that is because they are sufficiently discussed in other documents and writings.

Let’s not forget that the Catholic Church does engage in serious academic study before putting something on paper as official teaching. Such study usually includes all of the sciences that we have at hand, including behavioural psychology. From these it selects those hypotheses and conclusions that are consistent with Revelation.

It’s really simple. If the OP had asked “do you hate sin?” would there be all this quibbling? The fact that Catholic’s even argue over this when applied to the sin of homosexual acts is, in itself, a bias AGAINST homosexuals.

 

[Kevin42]

I am not sure if this has been posted yet, but if not, let us look further at the Council of Trent, specifically, Session 14 (On the most Holy Sacraments of Penance and Extreme Unction.)

Chapter I (On the necessity, and on the institution of the Sacrament of Penance.)

If such, in all the regenerate, were their gratitude towards God, as that they constantly preserved the justice received in baptism by His bounty and grace; there would not have been need for another sacrament, besides that of baptism itself, to be instituted for the remission of sins But because God, rich in mercy, knows our frame, He hath bestowed a remedy of life even on [Page 93] those who may, after baptism, have delivered themselves up to the servitude of sin and the power of the devil, --the sacrament to wit of Penance, by which the benefit of the death of Christ is applied to those who have fallen after baptism. Penitence was in deed at all times neccessary, in order to attain to grace and justice, for all men who had defiled themselves by any mortal sin, even for those who begged to be washed by the sacrament of Baptism ; that so, their perverseness renounced and amended, they might, with a hatred of sin and a godly sorrow of mind, detest so great an offence of God. Wherefore the prophet says; Be converted and do penance for all your iniquities, and iniquity shall not be your ruin. The Lord also said; Except you do penance, you shall also likewise perish; and Peter, the prince of the apostoles, reconmending penitence to sinners who were about to be initiated by baptism, said; Do penance, and be baptized every one you. Nevertheless, neither before the coming of Christ was penitance a sacrament, nor is it such, since His coming, to any previously to baptism. But the Lord then principally instituted the sacrament of penance, when, being raised from the dead, He breathed upon His disciples, saying Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. By which action so signal, and words so clear, the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood, that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the apostles and their lawful successors, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after baptism. And the Catholic Church with great reason repudiated and condemned as heretics, the Novatians, who of old obstinately denied that power of forgiving. Wherefore, this holy Synod, approving of and re ceiving as most true this meaning of those words of our Lord, condemns the fanciful interpretations of those who, in opposition to the institution of this sacrament, falsely wrest those words to the power of preaching the word of God, and of an nouncing the Gospel of Christ.

[continued below]

 

[Kevin42]

Moving on the Chapter IV (On Contrition.)

Contrition, which holds the first place amongst the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is a sorrow of mind, and a detestation for sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning for the future. [Page 96] This movement of contrition was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins; and, in one who has fallen after baptism, it then at length prepares for the remissions of sins, when it is united with confidence in the divine mercy, and with the desire of performing the other things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament. Wherefore the holy Synod declares, that this contrition contains not only a cessation from sin, and the purpose and the beginning of a new life, but also a hatred of the old, agreeably to that saying; Cast away from you all your iniquities, wherein you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. And assuredly he who has considered those cries of the saints; To thee only have I sinned, and have done evil before thee, I have laboured in my groaning, every night I will wash my bed, I will recount to thee all my years, in the bitterness of my soul, and others of this kind, will easily understand that they flowed from a certain vehement hatred of their past life, and from an exceeding detestation of sins. The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein. And as to that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, because that it is commonly conceived either from the consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from the fear of hell and of punishment, It declares that if, with the hope of pardon, it exclude the wish to sin, it not only does not make a man a hypocrite, and a greater sinner, but that it is even a gift of God, and an impulse of the Holy Ghost, --who does not indeed as yet dwell in the penitent, but only moves him, --whereby the penitent being assisted prepares a way for himself unto justice. And although this (attrition) cannot of itself, without the sacrament of penance, conduct the sinner to justification, yet does it dispose him to obtain the grace of God in the sacrament of [Page 97] Penance. For, smitten profitably with this fear, the Ninivites, at the preaching of Jonas, did fearful penance and obtained mercy from the Lord. Wherefore falsely do some calumniate Catholic writers, as if they had maintained that the sacrament of Penance confers grace without any good motion on the part of those who receive it: a thing which the Church of God never taught, or thought: and falsely also do they assert that contrition is extorted and forced, not free and voluntary.

It seems to me, while although hatred is a very strong passion, and should not be misdirected, it is well and good to hate sin-whatever it may be.

[source : http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html”]Council of Trent Session 14]

 

[blessedtoo]

It has been shown beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Church exhorts us to hate sin. To conitnue toi claim otherwise makes you look foolish.

Indeed. Thanks for posting all those documents.

This thread is a perfect illustration of how confusion arises in our own Church. Catholics who have allowed themselves to be swayed by secular propaganda and the misguided notions of psychiatry and “experts” have completely lost their ability to practice even the most basic doctrines of the Church.

It is no wonder to me why thread after thread on homosexuality draws Catholics who can’t make the distinction between sin and sinner. The whole purpose of the OP was to bring this confusion to the surface. Over and over it has been stated that we should hate the sin of homosexual behavior, NOT THE PERSON, yet those who are steeped in decades of secular indoctrination have apparently lost the ability to grasp this concept.

How about “hate the sin, love the sinner”? In the very statement itself we are exhorted to hate the things which will doom our eternal souls. Why is this so complicated when applied to this patricular sin?

 

[estesbob]

I can’t remember the number of the paragraph, but if you go the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The official teaching of the Church does not invite Catholics to hate either homosexual people or homosexual acts.

It does not use the word “hate”. It very clearly discusses that the homosexual act is disordered behaviour and morally wrong. But the word hatred is no where in the text.
ypotheses and conclusions that are consistent with Revelation.

The Churh makes it very clear we are to hate ALL sin. I am suprised anyone does not beleive this or beleives this does not apply to ALL sin.

Homosexual behavior is a sin. Thus we should hate it. Period. What we are seeing on this thread and elesewhere is that many want to give homosexual beahavior a special status. While grudgingly admiting it is a sin we are told that we should NEVER talk about it being a sin and if we do dare to do so(proving our “bias” we must add the disclaimer that other sins are just as bad or worst . The truth of the matter is that those who hold this view are not comfortable with the idea it is a in at all

 

[Scottgun]

The Churh makes it very clear we are to hate ALL sin. I am suprised anyone does not beleive this or beleives this does not apply to ALL sin.

Homosexual behavior is a sin. Thus we should hate it. Period. What we are seeing on this thread and elesewhere is that many want to give homosexual beahavior a special status. While grudgingly admiting it is a sin we are told that we should NEVER talk about it being a sin and if we do dare to do so(proving our “bias” we must add the disclaimer that other sins are just as bad or worst . The truth of the matter is that those who hold this view are not comfortable with the idea it is a in at all

Yeah, people are just brassing it out at this point. Majoring in minors (Catechism vs. encyclical) and obscuring reality (exterior vs. interior.)

 

[c659smith]

Yes Catholic so hate the sin of homosexual sex acts.

But we love and pray for the sinner to repent.

We all have different tendencies esspecially when it comes to sins of the flesh

But having these temptations and to act upon them is a different story.

 

[LittleDeb]

I am still lurking here with my eyes and heart open.

I am finding, through this thread, that I have been unwilling to truly hate any sin. I have been unable to separate certain sins from the sinner. (Myself included in that assessment.)

It certainly does lead to a watering down of my compassionate approach. How can one approach an alcoholic if one says, “Well, I know that what you are doing is destructive and harmful to yourself and others. But, in misplaced compassion I am going to say that your acts aren’t bad because they are too closely tied to your identity as a person?” Ridiculous there as well as addressing a person living in a homosexual lifestyle.

I think the saddest part for me is that I will lose many friends in theatre the very first time I stand up for my beliefs. But, I cannot continue to let it be believed that this particular Catholic is in disagreement with The Church and Her teachings.

It will be a very sad day for me. I would love to stay friends with my SSA friends in theatre, but from experience, I know they will reject me for having different beliefs. It is presumed that if I disagree with the act, then I “hate” them as people. :crying:

 

[JReducation]

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church you will find an entire section devoted to homosexuality and homosexuals; paragraphs 2357, 2358 and 2359.

The Church’s position is very clear “[Homosexuality’s] genesis remains largely unexplained, “ (Parr2357).

“. . . Scripture, . . . presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. . . . Under no circumstances can they be approved.” (ibid)… The Church does not use the word “hate”.

As to homosexuals the Catechism says

“Every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives . . . .” (Parr 2358).

This pretty much rules out hate crimes against homosexual people and reminds us that they have a place in the Church.

Do we hate sin, yes. Do we transfer the hatred of sin to those who sin, absolutely not.
Let remember what Jesus said, “Let him who has no sin throw the first stone.” I believe that Mary was out of town that day.

Observe how Jesus’ attention focused on the woman caught in adultery. He didn’t minimize the adultery, but it was not as important as the woman, because she was created through him, the Creative Word of God. The same was true of how he dealt with the Samaritan woman and the thief crucified by his side.

Jesus and the Church do not call us to minimize sin or ignore it.

At the same time, Jesus and the Church remind us of the greater power of love. If we focus just on the sin, we run the risk of ignoring the sinner.

Had God focussed on Adam’s sin and ignored Adam, he would not have broken into human history at Christmas and would not have died and risen for us at Easter. But God saw the sin and the darkness of the world. He was driven to bring light into the world so that those whom he loved would find their way home. It was a package deal, what the Easter Liturgy called “felix culpa,” the happy fault. Remember, as she prays so must she teach. With God sin is not without a sinner in need of love and justice.

Let us admit the sin and its gravity, but move on to the protection of the sinner from persecution, as Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery. Let us offer the sinner life giving water, as Jesus offered to the woman at the well. Finally, let us remind the sinner that there is a place for him or her in Heaven, as Jesus did with the thief on the cross.

 

[estesbob]

Let us admit the sin and its gravity, but move on to the protection of the sinner from persecution, as Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery. Let us offer the sinner life giving water, as Jesus offered to the woman at the well. Finally, let us remind the sinner that there is a place for him or her in Heaven, as Jesus did with the thief on the cross.

Not one single person has recommened that those who engage in homosexual behavior be presecuted. not one. So why do you feel it necessary to bring it up? Do you go in threads on mastrubation and warn peope not to persecute those who matrubate? Do you refer to “our mastubating brothers and sisters”? How about threads on adultery or pre-marital sex?

 

[Andruschak]

Once again, here is the Catechism

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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 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.

 

[JReducation]

Not one single person has recommened that those who engage in homosexual behavior be presecuted. not one. So why do you feel it necessary to bring it up? Do you go in threads on mastrubation and warn peope not to persecute those who matrubate? Do you refer to “our mastubating brothers and sisters”? How about threads on adultery or pre-marital sex?

EstesBob

Don’t shoot the messenger. I’m just quoting what the Catholic Catechism has to say on the subject.

The reason I’m doing so is in this manner?

There were some posts where the posters found it difficullt to separate the sin from the person. In one post, someone actually said that the killing of the gay college student who was tortued(whose name alludes me now), was not a hate crime, because the courts said it was not. That is one example of the danger that we face, if we don’t speak about both, the wrongfulness of the sin and the rights of the sinner. We will have more court judgments like this being handed down.

My other reason for bringing this up in this manner is because we have seen over and over again, that those who commit a sin are often rejected and hurt by the association that we make in our mind. You may not be one of those people, but there are many who are. I guess it’s part of being human. Sometimes, we have difficulty separating the sin and sinner.

My last reason for discussing this issue in this manner is to be consistent with the way that the Church discusses it. In the Catechism as well as in pastoral letters written by the Holy Father and our bishops, they always discuss the gravity of the sin and the compassion, justice and charity that is due to the sinner.

I am not trying to upset you or anyone else. I’m simply sharing what the Church says and how it says it. The Church always speaks of the sinner when speaking about the sin. While the Church denounces the sin, it always encourages love for the sinner. And it invites the sinner to remain close to the community of believers.

If you like, look at abortion. The Church has staunchly condemned abortion, but has always spoken about the compassion that is due to the person who chooses that route.

Almost every pastoral document that comes from the Church, on any sin, ends in a defense of human rights, including those of the sinner.

From what I learned in school, the logic behind this manner of writing is because the Church is very aware that we are human and that as humans we tend to let our emotions run away with us, especially on issues that are very contraversial.

I don’t believe it was an accident that the editors of the Catholic Catechism decided to write about homosexual sins and homosexual people in the same section. The Magisterium, in its wisdom, saw it fit to remind us that the two must be throught about simultaneously, but not treated the same way.

I sincerely regret any misunderstanding that my post may have provoked. Provoctation is not intention. My intention is to present the entire picture as the Church presents it in her teachings. She deals with the sin and the sinner. Her approach is very whollistic.

BTW Happy New Year:thumbsup:

 

[estesbob]

I sincerely regret any misunderstanding that my post may have provoked. Provoctation is not intention. My intention is to present the entire picture as the Church presents it in her teachings. She deals with the sin and the sinner. Her approach is very whollistic.

The problem is not one single person in this thread has disagreed with the above. not one. And as I said before the only times we seem to see these admoinitions is on threads about homosexualtiy. Do you agree with the Church that we should hate this sin?