I’m confused. Are you referring to my statement above? I was not trying to quote. I was just reminding us what we have all learned or should have learned, regarding sex and marriage. Sometimes we forget the unitive purpose of sex in the sacrament of marriage, which is equally important along with the procreative purpose.
I don’t have a problem with this but since I do not know the details here on it, I won’t comment either way. Thanks for the info though Zoe.
Honest Aussie, what I read from the person you quoted sounded neutral to me. Maybe you are sensitive on the topic and read more into her words then what is written. I am just trying to be objective.
As already answered and reemphasized: That’s not a sin. That’s called a friendship or a relationship depending on the contact. Say I do that with my dad, could anyone say I’m sinning to spend time with my dad? Your answer would be no. And I would fit in the above description. So the answer is no as you would hope it to be.
It’s good that you are pointing out what you are talking about since words are simply words. While many words have definitive meaning, people don’t always understand or know them.
well what was said seemed pretty clear to me about that persons thoughts
I would like to know where the neutrality is in there.
men tend to assume that knowledge of another person is not possible without the consummation of that “biblical” knowledge. Sex is a pathway to “knowing” for many men. But it actually is not essential to knowledge; it just makes the knowledge “easier” for men; it’s for many men a more “instant” and “direct” way of knowing someone, in that it opens the man up to express himself, & in that it is also a form of expression. But it is possible to know someone profoundly & thoroughly without “making” them. It’s just a little harder, takes a little more patience, requires more words. 
How does it not square up? Are you sure you’re just not reading my words incorrectly?
It CAN include sex, but that doesn’t mean it always does. Whether sex is involved or not, there is still a fundamental inner attraction (and when I say “attraction”, I’m not talking lustful desire) to the same sex. It’s part emotional, part psychological…and yes, part physical. But let’s skip the physical part for now, and follow through with your reasoning…since you are a straight (presumably) woman, does that mean you automatically have a desire for sexual activity with a straight man?
Yes it is denied to me, but I’m in no position to speak for the celibate priest or chaste single. I’m not going to make a blanket statement that covers all people. I realize that each person is an individual, and what may count as “emotional fulfillment” for one person may not be counted as such for another. But apparently you just aren’t grasping what I’m trying to say. So let’s look at it this way…I will presume you are a married woman (and if you aren’t, then let’s just assume you are, or at least consider the hypothetical…and for the record, this goes equally for the men, too): Are you in love with your husband? If so, how come? I mean, is it emotionally fulfilling for you? And if so, why? Furthermore, did you choose to hold the emotions toward your husband that you do, or did those feelings grow within you and stem from your attraction to him? For that matter, what DID attract you to him? Was it the way he looked…his face, his body, his arms, his hair style, his eyes…? His laugh? The sound of his voice? His wit and charm? His intelligence?
I’m going to stop you right there, because you are unjustifiably isolating a word from my comment and presuming I mean something by it that I do not mean. You think I’m using the word “whole” to mean “exclusively, without room for anything else”. But that’s not what I mean at all. By saying “whole” in that particular comment I made in the other post, I’m simply using it to mean “complete” and “unbroken”, as opposed to “half-hearted”.
No, actually I don’t. You see, if you actually KNEW me, you’d know that I find gay sex to not only be sinful and carnal, but also disgustingly gross and sick in some of its forms. HOWEVER, I’m still gay. Why do I say that? Precisely because I recognize inside of me an attraction to men in a physically affectionate/non-sexually intimate way. I feel like I’d be banging my head against a brick wall trying to get some people to understand what that’s like.
Perhaps they had the ability to make peace with it because of the different graces and strengths they were given. I really would appreciate it if you’d not include me in blanket statements. The concept of “fulfillment” is different for different people.There are those who philosophically might suggest that a gay person with at least an emotional union with a beloved partner is more fulfilled, known, and satisfied, than a single person who has not even that. And I assure you that there are millions of unattached straight people in the world, some who go to their graves never having partaken of such singular attachment. There is no difference between their lack of fulfillment and yours. Perhaps, though, the difference is that many of them have made their peace with that, whereas you have not?
I was simply trying to clarify what seems to be a misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality.
Yes, that’s right. And I find the majority of them to be repulsive and unpleasant.
Of course. I’m not denying that. I would, however, like to point out that we all fail. We may actually believe something is sinful, but do it anyway. It’s part of being a fallible, carnal human being. Paul himself stated that the good he knew to do, he did not do…but that which he knew NOT to do, that he did.
I’m sure the church does know the difference. But what I’m getting at is that there are also certain “things” (for lack of a better word to mean activities, situations, acts, etc…) that I want to “do” (again, for lack of a better word) with a man that I have no desire to do with a woman. “Things” such as snuggling, embracing and holding, kissing, running my fingers through his hair…but those aren’t considered sexual activities. There has to be a reason why I crave those things with a man, but not with a woman. To do them with a man would be more comforting for me…more fulfilling…more secure…more contenting. They’d feel “right” to me with a man, whereas doing them with a woman would only be an empty act…not a complete expression of my heart.
Yes, so is most of Protestantism, Islam, and Judaism. I’m not denying homosexual sex is sinful.
I can’t for the life of me understand why you are bringing up the subject of the data which reveals my religious profession…“Christian. 'Nuf said”. Whether I’m Catholic or not has nothing to do with my thoughts about homosexuality, which…if you really were listening to the words I’m trying to express…you’d find isn’t any different from the Catholic understanding of it. Please speak for yourself, not all Christians. I am fully aware that Catholics believe only they have the ability to properly interpret Scripture, and that only they are completely united in what they believe (even though they aren’t - and if you need examples, you obviously are oblivious to the divisions among the laity in the RCC)
Please don’t be content in making presumptions about me. My data said “Christian. 'Nuf said”, because I’m indifferent to the Catholic Church, but I’m also not anti-Catholic. I’ve simply decided, after a rather lengthy inquiry, that I do not want to become Catholic. I am, however, still very much Christian in my beliefs. Again, I think if you knew anything about me at all, you’d know that I have a MAJOR problem with all the divisions and multiple different versions of “truth” in Christianity. But I’m very convinced that God has walked with me, and shown me things, along the path I walk as a Christian…yes, as a non-Catholic Christian.
Speaking of logic, what is logical about supporting a practice as physically unhealthy as homosexual sex as if it were just a an odd thing like cross-dressing?
Prior to marriage, I’ve had desires for sexual activity with straight men whom I could not have (for various reasons). It didn’t mean that my life was ruined because it would have been illicit to indulge those (and I didn’t, despite the craving).
Yes, they grew within me, in response to his advances & to my attraction to his goodness. However, I chose to respond. I wasn’t forced to respond just because the attraction “grew within me.” I chose first of all to even allow myself to be an object of his attention in the first place; it wasn’t something deterministic or out of my control.
Actually, I did repress it at first, because of his religion, and because his parents disapproved that I was Catholic.
Strengths and graces are available to everyone. Again, if you happened to be Catholic this would be less of an issue for you to struggle with, as you would be steeped in the lives of the Saints, many of whom begged for graces to get through horrendous moments & struggles in their lives. People aren’t just “born” with easy lives. I’ve known very few people who seem to have had it very easy in life. (And then when you scratch the surface you find that appearances can be very deceiving, and they’ve had a lot more pain than most people can see.) People are “given” graces because they ask for them.
But there is only one God, not lots of different Gods, and he knows our uniqueness and is prepared to fulfill each of us in ways far beyond the immediate understanding of our finite minds. It doesn’t mean that because fulfillment is different for each individual, that therefore God doesn’t know how either to take care of that, or alternatively to transform our own insufficient concept of fulfillment with his vastly superior knowledge of fulfillment. Our ultimate fulfillment is in him, not in a spouse or a lover.
I totally respect the fact that we as humans can fall and it doesn’t end there. Each fall should be accompanied by a resolution to get up, do it, then follow through. It’s not that we never fall, but that Jesus says there will be greater rejoicing for one sinner that repents then ninety-nine who does not sin at all. Since we know all people are weak to the temptations of sin, it would seem that Jesus is talking about the pride and arrogence of believing oneself to not need repentance.
This is an interesting comment. I do not have much to offer in reply. I admit that I cannot relate well. I caress and hug my stuff animals and talk to them. But this is quite different. To me, God is the ultimate source of joy and I learn to love His creations because they are His.
As our perspectives widen, it’s clear to see that people come in gradients; not everyone is black or white. The Church certainly knows this and certainly encourage compassion within clear moral understands of objective reality. I am not sure which Catholics you are referring to “encourage people…to describe themselves as homosexual”, but Catholic teaching does not at all say what you are describing. Maybe the modern Catholics you met would say the same thing if they are listed under any other religious title since that is not Catholic teaching but teachings of men.
We are all called to perfection, in this life or the next
. However, Catholics never teaches there is a second chance, so make sure you are on the road to the Lord before you leave this life.I don’t think that Catholic teaching on homosexuality is all that fixed. It recognizes that homosexuality is a very complex condition that has manifested itself in different ways throughout the ages. The Church leaves it up to science as to what the genesis of the disorder is and whether it is always immutable or maybe sometimes transient. The only role of the Church is to state that that succumbing to the temptation to act on one’s tendencies is sinful, and therefore must be resisted. Compassion however leads to a teaching in which it is fully recognized how difficult and painful such a decision would be to anyone who is attracted to the same sex.
There is only one, perhaps two, forms of homosexual sex that I can think of which would be considered unhealthy, and they both involve bodily contact with a specific other body part…and in the interest of trying not to sound graphic, we’ll simple reference it as sexual contact with the backside.