For Pope Francis, legalism makes Christians stupid. [CNA]

[KSU]

1Lord1Faith, you insist that “the CCC states that homosexuality can be defined as an act or as the individual”, even though JosieN and I have quoted 2357 of the CCC to prove that it states no such thing. Your contention isn’t even grammatically correct --it’s akin to saying, for example, friendliness can be defined as an act or as the individual. It makes no sense.

So now you go further and state that in paragraph 2357 of the CCC " Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex"] the word '“relations” is not referring to sex.

Footnote 141 in 2357, however, refers to section VIII of the CDF’s PERSONA HUMANA which describes the type of relations in question as homosexual acts, and that of course means sex. Viz:

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

PERSONA HUMANA

VIII
QUOTE At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. END QUOTE

Is the Magisterium wrong or uncharitable?

 

[OraLabora]

You are saying that according to Church teachings homosexual sex is a sin, but not homosexuality, think that is what you mean, and sexual acts outside of marriage are not a mortal sin, because this is not a teaching of the Catholic Church?

I think Ronald Conte Jr. explains the CCC teachings very well. I hope others will read it. catechism.cc/articles/homosexuality-sin.htm

Ron Conte is well known around here. It is his personal opinion, and he misrepresents Catholic teaching. He is in. I way officially representing Catholic teaching.

 

[OraLabora]

Sorry I meant he is in no way representing the Church. I would add he is a self-described theologian and has no authority to publicly teach Church doctrine.

 

[goout]

Ron Conte is well known around here. It is his personal opinion, and he misrepresents Catholic teaching. He is in. I way officially representing Catholic teaching.

Unfortunately a google search for “Catholic Catechism” will bring his stuff to the fore and lead people away from the .va catechism (the universal one) .
Like you say some of it is in step and some is not.

 

[pnewton]

Homosexuality is not a sin, it is a condition.

The word has multiple connotations, including a lifestyle and a movement. I think it is most commonly used as a state, but that is not exclusive. This is why defining terms is so important, lest people who agree find them selves at odds when there is nothing to be at odds about.

Yes, the Church is clear that only homosexual actions, or lusts, are sinful.

 

[goout]

The word has multiple connotations, including a lifestyle and a movement. I think it is most commonly used as a state, but that is not exclusive. This is why defining terms is so important, lest people who agree find them selves at odds when there is nothing to be at odds about.

Yes, the Church is clear that only homosexual actions, or lusts, are sinful.

And this precision is lacking in so many of the conversations about our faith. Many times people use common terms without knowing what they are really talking about.

This is why the term Same Sex Attraction is very good. It accurately makes a distinction between the attraction and the action or lifestyle. Most advocates insist that “gay” and “homosexual” imply activity or advocacy. Ok fine.

“Attraction” makes it clear that a person has something that is common to every human person, and it is nothing to be ashamed of, it is not something that will send you right to hell. Everyone has attractions that must be mastered.
That’s what it means to be fully human: to be the master of our actions (through Christ of course). I love this passage from the CCC:

THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 3
MAN’S FREEDOM

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and **is master over his acts.**27
I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

 

[OraLabora]

And this precision is lacking in so many of the conversations about our faith. Many times people use common terms without knowing what they are really talking about.

This is why the term Same Sex Attraction is very good. It accurately makes a distinction between the attraction and the action or lifestyle. Most advocates insist that “gay” and “homosexual” imply activity or advocacy. Ok fine.

“Attraction” makes it clear that a person has something that is common to every human person, and it is nothing to be ashamed of, it is not something that will send you right to hell. Everyone has attractions that must be mastered.
That’s what it means to be fully human: to be the master of our actions (through Christ of course). I love this passage from the CCC:

Good point about SSA. Agreed (with PNewton) that homosexuality can have many connotations, from a general term covering the multitude of subjects associated with it.

I think though we can agree that a “homosexual” describes a person afflicted with SSA, and the two are more or less interchangeable. And as such a “homosexual” is or should be protected from discrimination, in particular within the Church as well-meaning but erroneous people will confuse it with meaning practicing homosexual. I know several homosexuals who are not practicing and who do try to configure their lives to the Church’s moral precepts. For which I say they deserve not condemnation, but instead admiration, because it certainly can’t be easy to do so in today’s hyper-sexualized world.

Still, there is danger with saying “homosexuality is a sin” as it leads to confusion, not knowing whether one is talking about the acts or the person. Homosexuality is not a sin, if we are referring to the attractions felt by a person. Only when those attractions lead to immoral activities does it become a problem.

To answer one of JosieN’s questions about lesbians engaging in sex acts, etc., here is the definition of “sodomy” from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal

Quite clearly then, the acts that active homosexuals (male or female) engage in are acts that heterosexuals can also engage in.

I therefore find it somewhat disingenuous to single out homosexuals for these acts when an even larger number of heterosexuals do the same thing. And I think therein may lie the problem of discrimination. We hardly “discriminate” against a married couple engaging in sodomy as defined above. It’s a private matter that should be between the couple and their confessor.

And lest we think that there is no “promotion” of these acts among heterosexuals, a quick surf of the 'Net will quickly dispel that theory

We are promoting unhealthy sexual lifestyles across the board, not just for homosexuals. I think it would be rather more helpful to concentrate on that rather than single out any specific subset of people engaging in immoral (and unhealthy) sex.

The “sexual revolution” has left an unholy mess, unfortunately, and heterosexuals are not immune to its damage.

 

[goout]

Good point about SSA. Agreed (with PNewton) that homosexuality can have many connotations, from a general term covering the multitude of subjects associated with it.

I think though we can agree that a “homosexual” describes a person afflicted with SSA, and the two are more or less interchangeable. And as such a “homosexual” is or should be protected from discrimination, in particular within the Church as well-meaning but erroneous people will confuse it with meaning practicing homosexual. I know several homosexuals who are not practicing and who do try to configure their lives to the Church’s moral precepts. For which I say they deserve not condemnation, but instead admiration, because it certainly can’t be easy to do so in today’s hyper-sexualized world.

Still, there is danger with saying “homosexuality is a sin” as it leads to confusion, not knowing whether one is talking about the acts or the person. Homosexuality is not a sin, if we are referring to the attractions felt by a person. Only when those attractions lead to immoral activities does it become a problem.

To answer one of JosieN’s questions about lesbians engaging in sex acts, etc., here is the definition of “sodomy” from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Quite clearly then, the acts that active homosexuals (male or female) engage in are acts that heterosexuals can also engage in.

I therefore find it somewhat disingenuous to single out homosexuals for these acts when an even larger number of heterosexuals do the same thing. And I think therein may lie the problem of discrimination. We hardly “discriminate” against a married couple engaging in sodomy as defined above. It’s a private matter that should be between the couple and their confessor.

And lest we think that there is no “promotion” of these acts among heterosexuals, a quick surf of the 'Net will quickly dispel that theory

We are promoting unhealthy sexual lifestyles across the board, not just for homosexuals. I think it would be rather more helpful to concentrate on that rather than single out any specific subset of people engaging in immoral (and unhealthy) sex.

The “sexual revolution” has left an unholy mess, unfortunately, and heterosexuals are not immune to its damage.

Part of the problem is that sodomy (however you define it) is listed as one of the sins that cry out to God for vengeance.
I fail to see why sodomy is more an abomination than any old garden variety adultery, other than it has scriptural backing, and of course the form itself is disordered. But a solid case can be made the M/F adultery causes way more misery than “sodomy”.

I wish that particular tradition would be clarified for the general public.
It is not a doctrine AFAIK, so as a pious tradition or whatever it seems to be out of step with current thought.

 

[kyrie03]

Part of the problem is that sodomy (however you define it) is listed as one of the sins that cry out to God for vengeance.
I fail to see why sodomy is more an abomination than any old garden variety adultery, other than it has scriptural backing, and of course the form itself is disordered. But a solid case can be made the M/F adultery causes way more misery than “sodomy”.

I wish that particular tradition would be clarified for the general public.
It is not a doctrine AFAIK, so as a pious tradition or whatever it seems to be out of step with current thought.

Perhaps our disdain for tradition is one of reasons we don’t relate well to the faith of our fathers? Doctor of the Church, St Peter Damien had this to say about sodomy:

"Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind … It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise … It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity … It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things …

“This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church … it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to GodÖ She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice … She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire. … this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind’s vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence.”

 

[kyrie03]

Ron Conte is well known around here. It is his personal opinion, and he misrepresents Catholic teaching. He is in. I way officially representing Catholic teaching.

How is he mis-representing Catholic teaching regarding sexual sins? All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life, are always objectively mortal sins. - do you understand the Church to teach differently?

Just because someone isn’t a “theologian” doesn’t disqualify him from authentically pointing out what the Church has always taught. It would be worthwhile to read what Pope St Pius X had to say about errant theologians in his encyclical Pascendi w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

Would we all be able to ascent to the oath against Modernism Pius X required of all clergy and teachers of the Catholic faith as a protection against heresy? Or are we too busy quibbling about whether or not someone seems to be charitable? True charity is love of God above ALL things; love of neighbor is secondary and is properly ordered when we help the neighbor to love God above all things.

But back to Pope St Pius X, here is a portion of Oath:

I (insert name) embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day…I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely"

papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

 

[kyrie03]

The Pope is not talking about clergy or canon lawyers. He is referring to Catholics who point their finger accusing other Catholics of mortal sin. Catholics are not supposed to do that. But some do it because they lack a theological understanding of Catholicism which always holds conscience, intention, charity above law. If canon law and the CCC are read carefully that is evident.

I’ve observed that when one on CAF speaks of “objective moral truths” they are labeled as “uncharitable” & “accusing others of mortal sin.” Chill. It’s not an ad hominem attack.

Where in canon law and in reading CCC do you get idea that charity is above the law? And how do you define charity?

Am I wrong in understanding that charity and following the law are never in opposition (don’t need strawmen fallacies) but they work together -keep all the Commandments to help us GROW in love of God with all of our heart, mind, and soul?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’ve observed that when one on CAF speaks of “objective moral truths” they are labeled as “uncharitable” & “accusing others of mortal sin.” Chill. It’s not an ad hominem attack.

Where in canon law and in reading CCC do you get idea that charity is above the law? And how do you define charity?

Am I wrong in understanding that charity and following the law are never in opposition (don’t need strawmen fallacies) but they work together -keep all the Commandments to help us GROW in love of God with all of our heart, mind, and soul?

See post # 105 about charity.

I was not speaking of odjective moral truth. I was speaking if people thinking that there is such a thing as objective mortal sin. The Church teaches no such thing. Read through the previous posts here.

 

[KSU]

How is he mis-representing Catholic teaching regarding sexual sins? All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life, are always objectively mortal sins. - do you understand the Church to teach differently?

Just because someone isn’t a “theologian” doesn’t disqualify him from authentically pointing out what the Church has always taught. It would be worthwhile to read what Pope St Pius X had to say about errant theologians in his encyclical Pascendi w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis.html

Would we all be able to ascent to the oath against Modernism Pius X required of all clergy and teachers of the Catholic faith as a protection against heresy? Or are we too busy quibbling about whether or not someone seems to be charitable? True charity is love of God above ALL things; love of neighbor is secondary and is properly ordered when we help the neighbor to love God above all things.

But back to Pope St Pius X, here is a portion of Oath:
papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htm

 

[OraLabora]

How is he mis-representing Catholic teaching regarding sexual sins? All sexual acts, outside of natural marital relations open to life, are always objectively mortal sins. - do you understand the Church to teach differently?

Absolutely not. The problem is that Mr. Conte goes way beyond what the Church teaches as licit.

If you read Mr. Conte’s beliefs, they are firmly in opposition to what St. John Paul II taught in the “Theology of the Body” as being permissible in marital relations, for example on a thoughtful husband helping his wife to climax during licit relations, or a woman helping her husband prepare for conjugal relations (we men of a certain age know about this…)

Given the choice between Mr. Conte, and those of a great man who is a pope and saint, I’d put my money on the latter, thank you very much.

For example on the issue of helping a wife climax, Mr. Conte says:

But manual stimulation to climax is the definition of masturbation, an act that is intrinsically evil and always immoral, regardless of circumstance, or context, or intention. Intrinsically evil acts are evil in and of themselves, regardless of anything and everything else; nothing at all can make an inherently immoral act moral. The only moral choice is to refrain from doing the intrinsically evil act.

(catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#06)

This is NOT Catholic teaching; as long as the act itself is unitive and procreative, it is permissible for the man to help his wife climax.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
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.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

I would like to see your source from the CCC that there is such a thing as “objective mortal sin”. People who have sex outside of marriage without knowledge that what they are doing is wrong are not committing a mortal sin. There would be no reason for the CCC to mention such a caveat if they did not exist.

 

[kyrie03]

Absolutely not. The problem is that Mr. Conte goes way beyond what the Church teaches as licit.

If you read Mr. Conte’s beliefs, they are firmly in opposition to what St. John Paul II taught in the “Theology of the Body” as being permissible in marital relations, for example on a thoughtful husband helping his wife to climax during licit relations, or a woman helping her husband prepare for conjugal relations (we men of a certain age know about this…)

Given the choice between Mr. Conte, and those of a great man who is a pope and saint, I’d put my money on the latter, thank you very much.

For example on the issue of helping a wife climax, Mr. Conte says:

(catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#06)

This is NOT Catholic teaching; as long as the act itself is unitive and procreative, it is permissible for the man to help his wife climax.

Ok…thanks for the unnecessary information. Josie wasn’t arguing THAT point of view, she was referring to acts being “intrinsically evil” if I understood the posts correctly. (See#91). Just to clarify -the part Josie quoted from Ron Conte was or was not problematic for you? Was Ron wrong? Irrelevant that he disagrees with Theology of the Body and licit versus illicit acts in a marriage.

 

[JosieN]

Absolutely not. The problem is that Mr. Conte goes way beyond what the Church teaches as licit.

If you read Mr. Conte’s beliefs, they are firmly in opposition to what St. John Paul II taught in the “Theology of the Body” as being permissible in marital relations, for example on a thoughtful husband helping his wife to climax during licit relations, or a woman helping her husband prepare for conjugal relations (we men of a certain age know about this…)

Given the choice between Mr. Conte, and those of a great man who is a pope and saint, I’d put my money on the latter, thank you very much.

For example on the issue of helping a wife climax, Mr. Conte says:

(catechism.cc/articles/marriage-bed.htm#06)

This is NOT Catholic teaching; as long as the act itself is unitive and procreative, it is permissible for the man to help his wife climax.

Honestly, I think this has gone too far. We are talking about sexual acts outside of natural marital relations that are not open to life and whether or not they are mortal sins. This belief has been taught to us Catholics for generations. How is it that it has become uncharitable to preach it now?

In the world today I am scared to speak the truth for offending someone, they call it hate, but I do not hate anyone. I never thought that on a Catholic forum I would be so attacked for simply stating the truth. Every generation until now has believed it. Why has it become uncharitable now? I know we are evolving and becoming less rigid, but I think some things must be held onto, don’t you?

 

[kyrie03]

See post # 105 about charity.

I was not speaking of odjective moral truth. I was speaking if people thinking that there is such a thing as objective mortal sin. The Church teaches no such thing. Read through the previous posts here.

Are there such things as “intrinsically evil acts” ? Was St Peter Damien also uncharitable?

I did see in post #97 that you posted Josie had no charity and is no better than any other grave sinner.

 

[OraLabora]

Ok…thanks for the unnecessary information. Josie wasn’t arguing THAT point of view, she was referring to acts being “intrinsically evil” if I understood the posts correctly. (See#91). Just to clarify -the part Josie quoted from Ron Conte was or was not problematic for you? Was Ron wrong? Irrelevant that he disagrees with Theology of the Body and licit versus illicit acts in a marriage.

Yes the part Josie linked to is problematic for me.

I posted what I did to illustrate how Mr. Conte is not in line with Church teaching and thus is not a reliable source.

I agree completely with the Church’s sexual morality, not with those of someone who claims to be a theologian, does not speak with authority of any kind, and in many instances openly contradicts Church teaching. Josie’s link is full of errors. Here is one example from Josie’s link. Mr. Conte says:

1. The claim that the homosexual orientation is a natural condition.

This claim is heretical because it denies the intrinsic moral disorder of the homosexual orientation and because it denies that the homosexual orientation is a result of the sins of individuals and of society. In truth, God created all that is truly natural. The homosexual orientation is contrary to the will of God and therefore it cannot be a part of nature as created by God. By no means could God have created anything which is intrinsically evil. Therefore, it is contrary to the Catholic faith to claim that the homosexual orientation is merely a result of nature or genetics or ‘normal’ human psychological development, as if sin were in no way involved as part of the cause of something which is intrinsically immoral.

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.

The Church, in her wisdom, does not purport to know the cause since current science does not know the cause, and leaves this open to science to work out, unlike Mr. Conte who makes scientifically unsubstantiated claims that neither the Church herself nor science makes.

More unsubstantiated claims:

1. What are the causes of the homosexual orientation?

The answer to this question is a matter of some dispute, and it is still, to some extent, an open question.

However, it is contrary to the Catholic faith to claim that the homosexual orientation is primarily or solely the result of biology, or genetics, or ‘normal’ human psychological development, as if sin were in no way involved as the fundamental cause of something which is itself intrinsically evil. Although some persons claim that genetics is involved to some extent, it is certain that this intrinsically evil orientation cannot be entirely predetermined by genetics, such that the nature created by God would leave some persons with no way to avoid that which is abhorrent to God.

These are his opinions, and in no way Church teaching. Moreover his notion that it is impossible for an intrinsic evil to have a primary genetic component because God cannot give people no way to avoid what is abhorrent to Him, is simply not scientifically substantiated. God surely doesn’t want people to die a horrible death from breast or ovarian cancer. Yet the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes do just that: women unfortunate enough to have inherited these genes have an up to 65% chance of getting breast cancer and a 39% chance of ovarian cancer in their lifetimes and the way of avoiding it is mutilating. It is a perfect example of an imperfect gene. So how could this gene be possible in spite of God and an (as yet undiscovered) “gay” gene be impossible because of God? There are many examples of nasty genetic conditions: cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Huntington’s disease etc., all these occur in nature, which discredit Mr. Conte’s claims about God and genetics.

Clearly then, Mr. Conte is teaching nonsense.

It is far wiser for the average Catholic (not all of us can be theologians, real or otherwise), to use the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by none other than John Paul II, a canonized saint of the Church, than from Mr. Conte. Mr Conte’s “Catholic teachings” are in fact mere private opinions. And I am being polite to avoid infringing Forum rules.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Are there such things as “intrinsically evil acts” ? Was St Peter Damien also uncharitable?

I did see in post #97 that you posted Josie had no charity and is no better than any other grave sinner.

CCC
2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

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,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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.

Note the difference between “intrinsically evil act” for rape, and “intrinsically disordered” for homosexual acts.

These are not my opinions. They are Church teaching from the Catechism Of the Catholic Church. Intrinsically evil acts do not necessarily rise to the level of mortal sin. Again, look at the definition of mortal sin; an intrinsically evil act or grave matter is only one of three requirements for a mortal sin.

The nature of “full knowledge” and “full consent” describing the other two requirements for mortal sin, are not easy and sometimes not possible for anyone outside of the sinner themselves to gauge. Thus, discernment of mortal sin belongs in the confessional between the penitent and God. The term ‘mortal sin’ is not to be thrown around carelessly as an accusation by anyone. You are essentially claiming that if the person you are accusing of mortal sin dies now, they are going to hell. That is a big no,no. You have zero claim on someone else soul. This is why it is uncharitable to throw the term mortal sin at anyone. According to Josie, it was my duty for me to let her know that she was in error.

I’m not talking about “intrinsically evil acts” or “objective moral truth”. Those two terms are NOT the same as the term mortal sin.