J
- Status
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
This is not Catholic teaching. Just because you were taught that homosexuality is a mortal sin does not make it so. Your opinion has been refuted by the teaching of the Catholic Church. And you can disagree with the Church all you want, but your disagreement lies with the Church not me. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not my opinion, it’s Church teaching. And it has been consistently cited to refute your position.
Your beliefs on homosexuality and mortal sin are not compatable with the Church’s. Therefore, it is no surprise to me that people may think of you as hateful. But God knows your heart, and knows that hate is not your intention.
O
OraLabora
Guest
It does not upset me at all. I did not say that the cause was genetic. I said it was wrong for Mr. Conte to say categorically that it wasn’t because it is not proven one way or the other.
I do not claim it is genetic as its cause has not been proven one way or the other. I am a scientist by training (I have a degree in chemistry). I do not have “opinions” about things like these. I have hypotheses, that should be tested scientifically. A good scientist is open-minded, tests the hypothesis, and if it is proven wrong, moves on.
At this stage nothing is proven, and an “opinion” doesn’t really do anything to advance the science.
The Church does not advance an opinion one way or the other. Perhaps having learned from past mistakes, she wisely says that the cause is not yet known. As Catholics, we can either choose to be in conformity with Church teaching, or outside of it. To propose an opinion that it is not genetic, when it isn’t proven, to me doesn’t advance the debate and may in fact serve to fuel prejudice. I prefer to keep an open mind about what may or may not be the cause, and simply act charitably towards gays.
Which bears repeating, and I will add again, the CCC was promulgated by saint John Paul II and bears his signature and full approval.
J
JosieN
Guest
If it is not a mortal sin then why did St. Augustine condemn homosexuality?
There are more quotes against homosexuality from saints on this site: tfpstudentaction.org/blog/12-quotes-against-sodomy-that-every-catholic-should-know
G
goout
Guest
You simply don’t fully understand what the Church teaches on mortal sin. Take a deep breath and listen.
O
OraLabora
Guest
A quick look at those quotes shows that Saint Augustine was preaching against sodomy.
I ask you: why do you think sodomy a worse sin when done by a homosexual, instead of a heterosexual?
I would wager that many more heterosexuals are practicing the sin of sodomy (which includes oral sex) than homosexuals, since they only make up less than 10% of the population. If 11% of heterosexuals practice sodomy, and I’d be willing to bet a beer that way more than that number do so, and not all homosexuals are practicing homosexuals (and I know several like that), then many more heterosexuals than homosexuals are practicing sodomy, many even in fact desecrating the marriage bed in so doing.
Whether practiced by a homosexual or heterosexual, sodomy remains an unnatural (and thus sinful) act.
The particular singling out of homosexuals strikes me as being disingenuous. You should be condemning all sexual sins: adultery, sodomy between opposite-sex and same sex partners, fornication, contraception, etc.
Shouldn’t the target of your ire, in fact, not be homosexuals specifically, but the “sexual revolution” in general, which has so seriously debased Western Society (as prophetically predicted by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae)?
E
EIF5A
Guest
Homosexual behavior is a grave sin - a mortal sin when the conditions are met.
Same-sex attraction itself is not sin.
It doesn’t help that people define homosexuality differently (e.g., attraction versus acts).
J
JosieN
Guest
I understand that, and have a solution. We should use the terms Same-sex attraction SSAC for those attracted but are trying to remain chaste, (C is for Chaste). That would clear things up.
SSA couples living together or say they are married, showing up at Church together, are clearly not chaste, and should not receive the Body of Christ, unless they have gone to confession and given up their relationship. What do you think of that?
As for the mortal versus grave sin, if they are Catholic and come regularly to Church, unless they’ve been living in a cave for the last 50 years, they will know it is a grave sin, and have full knowledge and are deliberately consenting to their sin, and that makes it mortal.
J
JosieN
Guest
I have never singled out homosexuals, someone else brought up the topic of homosexuals, I only responded to it with an opinion. If someone brings up the topic of contraception, I will tell them it is wrong, fornication is wrong as well, as are all the other things you mentioned, but the current push in the sexual revolution agenda is same-sex marriage. No one even 20 years ago would have thought it was possible. Without legalistic rules in place to guide us the “sexual revolution” will dominate all of society, including the Catholic Church. Next in line are the children, and they are now being educated in things no child should hear. Where and how do you think it should stop?
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
75% of Catholics do not attend Mass regularly. Some only go once or twice a year and have no formal Catholic education.
Unfortunately, some gay people I have known have heard it said that they are hellhound because they have SSA. They do not want to be around misguided people who, they think, hate them. So how and why would they ever know what the real teaching of the church is? They are not interested in hate. Therefore, they do not have “full knowledge”. Note the word “full”.
How often do you go to mass? How old are you? Yet You do not have “full knowledge” of Church teaching on homosexuality and mortal sin (have you been in a cave?). So, how is it that you propose a gay person with limited or nonexistent catechesis has full knowledge of Church teaching on homosexuality?
E
EIF5A
Guest
Upon hearing from these people, have you corrected their misunderstanding and explained the actual teaching from the Church?
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
They know basically what the teaching is now, the issue is that they don’t want to be around people who stare at them and do not accept their current lifestyle. It’s really more of a 'to little to late ’ issue. They have moved into a gay lifestyle and are not interested in turing to the Church, they pursue God privately, however they see fit. One is already dead, the others have been driven away from the Church long ago and are comfortable with a private relationship with God. I also do not see them very often. It is what it is, and it’s between them and God now.
R
Rosebud77
Guest
sounds very familiar from here.
E
EIF5A
Guest
I really wish people who understand why their “lifestyle” is not accepted. It’s not because of “homophobia” although I’m sure there are people who do hate simply because they are gay.
Everything has purpose and order as designed by a Creator, who has established what is right and wrong in His created world.
If a gay couple sat in the pews and no one knew they were a couple and did not engage in public displays of affection, no one would care.
As a gay person myself who is bound by the teachings of the Church, there are moments of extreme resentment and unfairness, to the point of hatred — the burden of secrecy, knowing that people will be thoroughly disappointed with you, shame.
But our existence on earth is not the end – just a pitstop – even a valley of sorrows and tears that everyone suffers – with eventual hope of joy. Even Oscar Wilde and his male companion became converts at the end of their lives.
P
pnewton
Guest
While I agree with your point, where speaking of objective reality back fires, this first question is easily answered, depending on what you mean by “above”. It is in fact the whole point of the Gospel reading on which Pope Francis spoke. One finds the that the charity “above” the law in the teaching of Jesus, where he spoke the greatest commandment was that of love. It is found in the writings of Paul where he spoke that of all that there is, only faith, hope and charity remain forever, and that charity was the greatest of all.
Ideally, charity is never in conflict with “the law”. Charity is never in conflict with the moral law. It might on occasion conflict with Canon Law. Pope Francis addressed this very issue in his last pastoral letter. He said:
and
Again, I am addressing the homily and the Scripture passage. I like that you asked for the definition of charity, as that encompasses more than emotion. “Love” too easily evokes the emotional needs, and neglects the spiritual needs. This is a serious and fatal reversal of priorities. True love can hurt, but must always meet the criteria that Paul set:
People poke fun at being “nice”, but if you leave the path of kindness and patience, you have left the path of love.
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
The ‘why’ is really not much different for unmarried heterosexuals as it is for homosexuals. The rhetoric by some Catholics seems to be what separate the two. For example, a priest who is chaste is generally not looked at in the same way as a gay person who is chaste; even though they can be one in the same.
E
EIF5A
Guest
Unfortunately, a chaste gay person suffers from guilt by association with the radical gay agenda, even if s/he does not condone it.
But looked at by whom? How would a parishioner tell apart a gay person if s/he does not say s/he is gay?
The left perpetuates the victim mentality and sets up a narrative that everyone who opposes them is a “bigot”, “phobe”, etc. And people believe them
J
JosieN
Guest
I admire your honesty and courage. You have a heavy cross to bear. God Bless You.Unfortunately, a chaste gay person suffers from guilt by association with the radical gay agenda, even if s/he does not condone it.
But looked at by whom? How would a parishioner tell apart a gay person if s/he does not say s/he is gay?
The left perpetuates the victim mentality and sets up a narrative that everyone who opposes them is a “bigot”, “phobe”, etc. And people believe them
O
OraLabora
Guest
The Church absolutely does not teach this. This is what the CCC says of the sin of masturbation, one of the other sins against chastity:
It’s a principle that applies to many sins, especially those addictive in nature, which homosexual activity can be for some people. In other words someone’s immaturity, or acquired habit (i.e. addiction) and other factors may lessen culpability from mortal to venial, or to none at all as stated above. These factors can be intermixed, and each circumstance is individual, something to be worked out with one’s confessor.
It’s not simply a matter of once having heard it, one flips a switch and suddenly becomes chaste. It is an individual matter that is to be determined in the confessional.
Moreover, when someone comes to the Church wanting to convert, we don’t say “OK, now that you know about it, you must quit your homosexual activities or you can’t come through the door”. The penitent works with his or her confessor, and perhaps a spiritual director, to overcome their sin. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses, and for some the ongoing conversion may happen faster than others and breaking a bad habit may be more difficult for some than for others. We don’t turn them away from the sacraments. As my own confessor said once, “it’s the effort that God appreciates, even if He knows often the result won’t be perfect”. A good spiritual director will work with someone in this situation (or with an alcoholic or other form of addict, perhaps with supplemental professional psychological help).
The first words of the Prologue of the Rule of Saint Benedict are:
In this case, the “master” I would recommend listening to, is Saint John Paul II in the excellent Catechism that he promulgated in the 1980s. It is a gem of wisdom, of truth but also of touching humanity and full of solicitude for the difficulties of life, as the above quote more than abundantly illustrates.
It would give you a much much better insight into mortal sin and what the Church actually teaches about it.
J
JosieN
Guest
Here is what Saint Felix III said about those who suppress the truth.
"Not to oppose is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them."
There are two kinds of sin, mortal and venial. If it is continually preached that homosexual sins are only a grave matter we have failed to tell the truth about this sin. By not calling it a mortal sin, we are calling it a venial sin. We cannot forget the true seriousness of certain sins and how damaging they are to ones soul. Not to confound is to encourage.
Here is what the Catholic Catechism says, I do not see where I was wrong.
IV. The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. the distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
- Status