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

  • Thread starter Thread starter urban-hermit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know I’m supposed to, but I don’t. It’s something to work on.
 
“Catholics only: Do you hate homosexual sex acts (as we are obliged to)?”

I find the framing of this question uncharitable.😦
 
urban-hermit said:
The reason I ask is that many threads here have Catholics who understand very well that we are supposed to treat homosexuals with respect (a good thing!), but do not seem to grasp the seriousness of the danger to the homosexual of being sexually active.

I post it here in Social Justice because I feel it speaks very much to the common good, however politically incorrect it may sound.

I have heard people say they have a problem with anybody who treats homosexual sex acts as more serious than other mortal sins, such as contraception or fornication. This makes no sense to me.

I have heard people say that homosexual sex acts are expressions of love, which also makes no sense to me.

Are the “peace and love” people missing the fact that the active homosexuals they love will basically rot in hell if they do not repent?
Click to expand...
why (in your opinion) are homosexual acts graver than heterosexual sins, dealing with inappropriate sexual acts, say premarital sex, etc…?:confused:
 
whatevergirl said:
why (in your opinion) are homosexual acts graver than heterosexual sins, dealing with inappropriate sexual acts, say premarital sex, etc…?:confused:
Click to expand...
I’ll try that one. St. Thomas Aquinas writes on this fairly well.

Basically, b/c a misuse of natural acts is less egegious than unnatural acts. According to St. Thomas, fornication would be the least bad sexual sin, adultery would be worse b/c it includes a breach of the marriage vows to the sexual sin, homosexuality would be still worse b/c it is an un-natural act, and bestiality the worst b/c it goes outside the species.
Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another. While the most grievous is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed. Hence a gloss on Genesis 37:2, “He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime,” says that “they copulated with cattle.” After this comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed. Lastly comes the sin of not observing the right manner of copulation, which is more grievous if the abuse regards the “vas” than if it affects the manner of copulation in respect of other circumstances.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm
 
whatevergirl said:
why (in your opinion) are homosexual acts graver than heterosexual sins, dealing with inappropriate sexual acts, say premarital sex, etc…?:confused:
Click to expand...
i didn’t say they were worse, what makes no sense is to defend homosexual sex acts against criticism because “fornication’s just as bad”
 
urban-hermit said:
i didn’t say they were worse, what makes no sense is to defend homosexual sex acts against criticism because “fornication’s just as bad”
Click to expand...
oh–ok! I see…yeah, I don’t like circular arguments either…

bilop–thank you so much for your (name removed by moderator)ut–I like that explanation.
 
bilop said:
I’ll try that one. St. Thomas Aquinas writes on this fairly well.

Basically, b/c a misuse of natural acts is less egegious than unnatural acts. According to St. Thomas, fornication would be the least bad sexual sin, adultery would be worse b/c it includes a breach of the marriage vows to the sexual sin, homosexuality would be still worse b/c it is an un-natural act, and bestiality the worst b/c it goes outside the species.

newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm
Click to expand...
What other figures of Catholic antiquity do you have references to in regards to “homosexuality and scripture”?
 
Married couples are given the grace of sexual relations with their spouses. If, through death, divorce, annulment or separation, the union no longer exists, than the single Catholic is called to celibacy.

While many Catholics have lapsed in their duty to remain celibate outside of marriage, it doesn’t remove the responsibility. The sin against chastity remains.

While homosexuals may not choose their affinity, they can choose to live their lives as chaste members of Christ’s Church. Not easy, but spiritually, what a grand grace has been offered to them.
 
maggiemay2u said:
Married couples are given the grace of sexual relations with their spouses. If, through death, divorce, annulment or separation, the union no longer exists, than the single Catholic is called to celibacy. ** (For how long… life**? I didn’t think so!)

While many Catholics have lapsed in their duty to remain celibate outside of marriage, it doesn’t remove the responsibility. The sin against chastity remains.

While homosexuals may not choose their affinity, they can choose to live their lives as chaste members of Christ’s Church. Not easy, (prove it) but spiritually, what a grand grace has been offered to them.
Click to expand...
The above bolded two letter word is one word in your whole posts that offsets your entire argument. The red statements are my responses.
 
truagape said:
The above bolded two letter word is one word in your whole posts that offsets your entire argument. The red statements are my responses.
Click to expand...
Yes, for life. I’ve done it for a long time…it’s not easy, but I have found a deeper spirituality and bond with my God and my Church because of it…I guess that might be termed “grace”

Prove grace? I do it the same way I prove God’s love. By faith.
 
larsegarots said:
Homosexuality and bisexuality are acts that occur in nature.
Click to expand...
So do animals eating their young, polygamous relations, etc. that doesn’t make them natural. Natural, for humans, basically means conforming to the natural law (of right and wrong) that God has written on every soul.

God Bless
 
bilop said:
Natural, for humans, basically means conforming to the natural law (of right and wrong) that God has written on every soul.

God Bless
Click to expand...
And do you also recognize that even the original language of scripture would too agree with that statement?
 
truagape said:
If you don’t mind me asking, what do you mean?
Click to expand...
Your question was (relating to celibacy in the single state) “For Life?”

My response was "Yes, for life. I’ve done it for a long time…it’s not easy, but I have found a deeper spirituality and bond with my God and my Church because of it…I guess that might be termed “grace”

By “done it” I refer to remaining celibate, as I am called to be, as an unmarried person. Please do not dismiss the rest of my response, which deals with the bond that has resulted in my remaining true to my calling.
 
maggiemay2u said:
Your question was (relating to celibacy in the single state) “For Life?”

My response was "Yes, for life. I’ve done it for a long time…it’s not easy, but I have found a deeper spirituality and bond with my God and my Church because of it…I guess that might be termed “grace”

By “done it” I refer to remaining celibate, as I am called to be, as an unmarried person. Please do not dismiss the rest of my response, which deals with the bond that has resulted in my remaining true to my calling.
Click to expand...
I new that you were talking about celibacy. I wasn’t questionong that. I was talking about the circumstances surrounding your celibacy. For example, have you ever been married, or desired to?
 
truagape said:
If you don’t mind me asking, what do you mean?
Click to expand...
BTW, would you please clue me in to how the word "IF"offsets my statements? I’ve reread that a few times and it still doesn’t make any sense to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top