Its big concern only because our society is trying to normalize something that is completely contrary to the nature of sex and marriage. Our society is obssesed with disorded sex. We, as the conscience of society, are only responding.
Hi jay29. As you can imagine, I disagree with some of the assumptions made in these sections of the catechism. But I do believe that subscribing to them (particularly or especially if one is Roman Catholic or is a homosexual and feels called to celibacy) is certainly honorable.
I know of some lovely long-term relationships. But you’re right in that popular constructions of homosexual culture do not encourage them. However, I think the problem is not with homosexuality qua homosexuality, that is, I don’t think that the issue is that homosexuals are generally panting sex fiends. I think the issue has to do in part with stigmatization–which is to say, the reaction against stigmatization has led to the creation of a culture (or subculture) which accentuates difference at the expense (paradoxically) of identity: sexuality becomes the touchstone of identity. So I feel that the elements of homosexual culture which you enumerate have more to do with a reaction to certain conditions of repression in the culture-at-large which (coupled with the male sex drive in the case of homosexual male culture) pushes things to incredible extremes. Vice becomes celebrated as a marker of identity–but that vice is not intrinsic to homosexuality, but comes from an internalization, on behalf of homosexual culture, of the scorn and degradation of the prevailing culture. What in oneself becomes of value when one has been stripped of value? The virtue of religion is that it teaches us that our value is not, in fact, intrinsic to ourselves. But secular culture teaches a different (and ultimately destructive) lesson altogether. Again, it is not homosexuality itself that is at fault here. There are a lot of other factors to consider.
Predictably, I disagree with homosexuality being against nature. I’ve heard the arguments, but none seem particularly convincing. Homosexual activity occurs in many mammmals and appears to be quite natural as far as that’s concerned. One could say (and I’ve heard it said) that that’s the result of being in a fallen world and no actual indication of what’s natural or unnatural–but killing animals for food also seems to be a result of the fall; nonetheless, people don’t generally tend to believe that eating a cheeseburger is unnatural (unless you’re Jewish!).
Our initial assumptions are just slightly different, E&W. I don’t see mutual self-giving as against the intended purpose of sex. Evolutionarily speaking, homosexuality could be a very creative solution to population control and mate competition/sibling rivalry (I’m thinking of Bogaert’s study which indicates that a larger number of older brothers means an increased likelihood that the younger brothers will be homosexual–which effectively limits mate competition).
You’re absolutely right that the misuse of sexuality is prevalent. I believe that any reduction of another human being to a mere use-value is sinful, whatever that use may be. Can sexuality be misused? Most certainly.
I’d say that’s a start (even the sine qua non), but that it’s not the only requirement. I don’t think there’s a single checklist of requirements for this. But I think if one were to engage in an act of physical intimacy which is characterized by self-giving, then an expectation of love, mutuality and a commitment to moving forward in relationship would not be too much to ask, I don’t think. Honestly, I see the sacrament of marriage as the crown of relationship, not sex. It’s the sacrament which opens the possibility to greater intimacy, and the grace which the sacrament bestows can be effectual even in a non-sexual marriage, I think.
I don’t believe they necessarily must, but the keynote of the act is not merely consent. I don’t think that sex is recreational in the sense of just another fun thing consenting adults can do.
Really, I mentioned it above–the line is crossed when one person reduces another to mere use-value–it’s a denial of their humanity.
I would have compassion on the man for making such a desperate choice characterized by a flaw in logic. The most important word in your scenario is may. That is, the man may never have a “normal” relationship with a woman, but it’s not impossible. The man, therefore, despairs, and rather than seeking a partner who can look beyond the disfigurement, he commdifies sexuality–reduces it to use value. Both his actions and the actions of the prostitutes are therefore suspect because of the use-value aspect. But both the man and the prostitutes are worthy of compassion, particularly the man, whose actions were conditioned by despair.
I would wonder what career this man is in… Commodification of sex is an evil, I believe. But is he any different from the man in the first scenario? Fundamentally, no–in the sense that they’ve both done something unfortunate and are both worthy of our compassion. But I believe that the second man is more culpable than the first, given that the first man’s situation was conditioned by despair arising from a loneliness due to an external factor beyond his control. The second made all of his choices consciously.
You’re right–we all do this quite often.
You are absolutely right. The points that you have brought up are certainly things that should be considered. I have considered this from time to time as well. However, if society’s homophobic attitude is what contributes to homosexual promiscuity glorification of vice, then it would seem that the situation would be quite different in a society that embraces homosexuality. So, let us go back the greeks. Here homosexuality was seen as ok, normal. In fact some greeks saw it as preferable because of their sexist attitudes. Were greek homosexuals more virtuos than modern homosexuals? The answer is a resounding NO. They engaged almost exclusively in pedastery. You see, where there is homosexuality, there is a lack of virtue.
I think there are several misunderstandings in this arguement.
The is no reason to believe that eating animals is contrary to nature. Nothing negative or disordered really results from it. Perhaps it was improper in the garden but not so outside of it.
The book defines agape as continued love in spite of a person’s faults. Infatuation, on the other hand, ignores those faults. That being the case, this can be studied and analyzed through psychological survey and experimentation.
Can it be a solution? Only two percent of the population is homosexual. Not a very effective form of population control. Perhaps having more older brothers has a feminizing psychological effect on younger brothers. It may have nothing to do with evolution.
Like I have said before, I think that your experience is an exception to the rule and you will find not as real as you expected and I fear that it may really hurt when you find that out. But do know, that I do not disrespect you for you view point. God knows I wish I could agree with it. It would make my life easier. But I just don’t think that view is reality. May God continue to bless you and your partner. I hope you find much happiness.
Looks like your going to have to jump ship pretty soon because when the Episcopal communion cant get an issue like this right then you shouldnt put them under the care of your soul.
I see what you are saying, but that isnt quite the right answer. This isnt about an “exception” to the rule. The fact is, and I will be blunt, Sodomy is not love and in fact is the furthest thing from it. The Bible condemns homosexual acts on multiple fronts implicitly and explicitly from the beginning with Adam and Eve, through Sodom, the Mosaic Law, and the Gospels and NT Epistles. It is a sad disorder which came as one of the many consequences of the fall.
I dont think its love either and that is what i fear he will find and be severely hurt by that discovery.
While that is true, do you think that pontificating like that will help anyone? I am speaking from experience. I know that the gay world is messed up because I lived in it and really thought that I loved my boyfriend and that love was mutual (Boy was I wrong). You have to understand that some gays really think they love their partners. However, misguided this is, railing on about how it can never rise above the deadly sin of lust only pushes them further away. Rather, we need to show homosexuals who are involved in this life style, why it is unhealthy and why God has better things prepared for them.It can never rise above the deadly sin of lust. The worst thing of it all is that some churches bless these “unions”!
Unfortunately you misinterpret my post and its intent. I do not set about in every post on a forum (and I’ve posted in many different forums on many different subjects for about a decade) to insult and heckle people. Yes, I’ve lost my patience and temper sometimes, but in the aftermath of such experiences I’ve learned the value of paying attention to how explosive emotions can often be triggered by debates about complex and difficult issues, especially where our most deeply held beliefs and convictions are held.
Personally I think we need to take care in deriving moral ‘oughts’ from nature. It is true the objection to homosexual conduct by Christians of various denominations occurs in two forms; appealing to revelation (the Bible and its interpretation) or natural law. Natural law in the Catholic moral tradition is the way things are meant to be following the providence of God in the created universe. Natural law has its roots in Greek and Stoic philosophy and was adopted a lot by Aquinas. Aquinas believed (following Aristotle and his biology, the best scientific paradigm available at the medieval time) that the purpose of sex as made by God was procreation. Aquinas recognised sex was a natural desire and in itself is not evil, but can become disordered in some ways (such as through perverted lusts). Aquinas also believed and argued some forms of sexual conduct were disordered, including masturbation, fornication, homosexual sex, and bestiality. I don’t think it is incorrect to say, at least in my own study of Catholic moral theology, that the Catholic church still holds to the original ideas of Aquinas, though re-expressed in its documents and catechism in more personalistic language.
Maybe i live an isolated life but i think its the right wing religious leaders who give homosexuals all the publicity. Sure you may have a movie like Broke Back Mountain A show like WIll and Grace and scattered refrences to Homosexuality but for the most part the presence of Homosexuality is fairly nonexistent its presences is amplified though when i hear people protest it
I agree … we don’t condone eating our young or throwing them out of the nest from great heights either. (Unless they’re teenagers
)Hi E&W. I think you mischaracterize the situation in ancient Greece. First, the institution was pederasty, not homosexuality as we understand it today.
I don’t quite view natural as the law of the jungle, but here you fall into the same trap you accuse me of being stuck in–you say that natural does not refer to nature as it is observed in the world, but then insist (in your final question here) that natural refers to what is observed in the world (biology)–again, after you’ve defined it as having everything to do with a somewhat Platonic ideal, as something proper to the human person. Which is it?
Greg27, this is quite a thoughtful and thought-provoking post. Thank you.
God bless you.
OK. I’m glad you are posting this.
Being attracted to members of the same sex is not a sin. Jesus siad “If you look at a woman lustfully you have commited adultery in your heart.” Looking at another man lustfully is commiting a homosexual act in your heart. The act is a sin.