Determining if someone is in a state of Mortal Sin

[Tannhauser]

Then you should not be so quick to dismiss it. Ask for clarification.

So you said before. I gave you information that indicated that this not a correct statement. Either provide evidence that counters this and supports your claim or admit you are wrong. Simply repeating yourself does not advance your position.

I am sorry to hear that 6 paragraphs was such a burden. And the first one directly countered your assertion. Did you miss my introductory summary?

“Christian relationships are to be animated by love (agape). The purpose of sexuality is discussed in the Catholic Cathechism”.

1. I have found you to be quite hostile and rude in this response. This is a shame. I wouldn’t have expected this sort of churlish attitude directed towards another Catholic, and especially on a website that is designed to encourage friendly discussion.
2. I agree with you that Christian love should be animated by agape: the love that, through others, seeks its end in Christ. I also agree that sexuality, as prescribed by God, is ordered and finds its finality in conjugal love. This doesn’t actually contradict my original point, which was that sexuality animates our emotional and physical desires, and as Christians we are called to order that towards Christ. For the gay man or woman, gay sexuality does not in its entirety contradict this precept: the appreciation of beauty; the love of friendship, the desire for companionship: all of this, even with somebody of the same sex, is not at all in contradiction with the Church’s teaching.
3. You haven’t provided information that contradicts my statement. In-fact, you haven’t even bothered to actually cite **and engage ** my original statement, other than to copy a huge chunk of the Catechism and insist: this invalidates your point. And once more: try to be friendlier.

 

[Tannhauser]

I don’t know what it is you profess, but this looks strange and alien to anything taught by authentic Christianity. Homophobia is a word used by those who either have given themselves over to sexual disorders or those who affirm them, usually code word for “you are crazy, you are hateful.” Truth is, nothing can be more hateful than affirming someone in sin that leads them away from God and his Kingdom. It is not me who “insist that anything outside of God’s plan for sexuality within marriage is disordered,” it is the Catholic Church, built upon the apostles and established by Jesus Christ Himself who insists this. That much is Bible 101. Lucifer disguises himself as an angel of light and beauty, but not all that glitters is gold. Lust is like to Luster, and it may sparkle, but it is a fools gold. Sexual oppression and disorder disguises itself as liberation and beauty, but it is not so, and results in much sorrow and loss. The kind of stuff you are presenting here is very dangerous and harmful and I hope that you will change your outlook one day.

1. You attitude towards the meaning of homophobia is, quite frankly, disgusting. Homophobia has taken many forms throughout history: one, as being discussed on another thread in this forum, was the Nazi persecution of homosexuals.
2. I ought to clarify my original statement. I fully agree with the Church that gay men and women are called to emulate Christ’s chastity; and I fully agree that sex between members of the same sex - indeed between anybody outside of marriage - is sinful. However, sexuality, expressed between members of the same sex: the appreciation of beauty; the love of friendship, and companionship; holding hands; spending time together etcetera, I don’t believe this contradicts Scripture. Love, expressed between gay people, so long as it is chaste, I cannot see to be problematic. Perhaps others will have a different opinion to share on this matter.

 

[davidv]

1. I have found you to be quite hostile and rude in this response. This is a shame. I wouldn’t have expected this sort of churlish attitude directed towards another Catholic, and especially on a website that is designed to encourage friendly discussion.
2. I agree with you that Christian love should be animated by agape: the love that, through others, seeks its end in Christ. I also agree that sexuality, as prescribed by God, is ordered and finds its finality in conjugal love. This doesn’t actually contradict my original point, which was that sexuality animates our emotional and physical desires, and as Christians we are called to order that towards Christ. For the gay man or woman, gay sexuality does not in its entirety contradict this precept: the appreciation of beauty; the love of friendship, the desire for companionship: all of this, even with somebody of the same sex, is not at all in contradiction with the Church’s teaching.
3. You haven’t provided information that contradicts my statement. In-fact, you haven’t even bothered to actually cite **and engage **my original statement, other than to copy a huge chunk of the Catechism and insist: this invalidates your point. And once more: try to be friendlier.

I believe post #42 contained the “original statement” that I made comment on. I quote

I think this is quite wrong, and quite [unintentionally] homophobic. Sexuality is that which animates our relationships, and orders our emotional, physical, aesthetic attractions. The sexuality professed by a gay man or woman, orientated towards their own sex, whilst it cannot fulfil God’s prescription for sexuality, it nevertheless characterises a sexual identity for that person.

My original response was directed at the bold part. My basic point was that if sexuality animates our relationships, these relationship are disordered because they should be animated by love. This point had nothing whatever to do with attractions.

In addition it also appears that none of this is relevant to the OP. If you desire addition conversation on this topic please start a new thread.

 

[RichP]

However, sexuality, expressed between members of the same sex: the appreciation of beauty; the love of friendship, and companionship; holding hands; spending time together etcetera, I don’t believe this contradicts Scripture. Love, expressed between gay people, so long as it is chaste, I cannot see to be problematic. Perhaps others will have a different opinion to share on this matter.

Let’s turn this question around a little bit. Should a married man be able to show an appreciation of beauty, the love of friendship and companionship, holding hands, spending time together with a woman who is married to someone else even though they are both chaste? Doesn’t this sound like adultery?

However, members of the same sex *should *be able to express their love for each other through their friendship, companionship, holding each other, and spending time together. But this should be expressions of their filial love for each other, not expressions of erotic love for each other. There are three different kinds of love. Expressions of filial or brotherly love are very appropriate between members of the same sex. This is how I show my love for my father and my brothers. There is no erotic love there. The problem with expressions of erotic love between two people who are not married to each other is that they are deliberately tempting themselves trusting in their ability to resist the temptation they are creating.