Gods view in homosexuality

[Seeker1961]

Admonishing sinners is a spiritual work of mercy. It’s an act of love, not an act contrary to it.

So you admonish away, you pat yourself on the back for your “act of love” and the person you admonished never comes anywhere near a Church again because what they heard was “being gay is an abomination”. All because they understand the term “gay” as meaning orientation and you understand it as behavior.

Again, what is the real goal here??

 

[CaptBell800]

I have to say that explaining “wrong” to a child is entirely different than explaining it to an adult. When you teach a child that something is wrong and why that is, you are speaking from a position of authority and a loving bond that you already possess with the child.

If you try to speak the same way to an adult, a total stranger who feels no connection with your already, it will just come across as condescension to tell them that they are just wrong. Admonishment will get you nowhere. You have to use different tactics. You have to explain both why something is wrong and why the Catholic way is a better way for everyone. You can’t insult someone and expect them to come over to your side, even if you are right. Persuasion is a far more useful tool.

 

[sw85]

So you admonish away, you pat yourself on the back for your “act of love” and the person you admonished never comes anywhere near a Church again because what they heard was “being gay is an abomination”. All because they understand the term “gay” as meaning orientation and you understand it as behavior.

Again, what is the real goal here??

LOL. I think you misunderstand me.

I don’t do much of any admonishing these days, because there’s no point to it. As you say, it’s futile. Most sinners are recalcitrant, utterly in thrall to their sin, blinded by pride. Until and unless I see some glimmer of preliminary repentance, I can’t do anything for them, therefore I won’t waste my time. (Not that anything I could do could save them, only the Holy Spirit acting/speaking through me, having already moved them to grace).

I am often critical of CAFers for their “ABE” attitude – Always Be Evangelizing. I suspect it comes from the Protestant roots of some of CAF’s founders and the Protestant sensibilities of many of its posters. I recall one post a while back in which someone actually said that people should use their children to evangelize homosexuals! Craziness. This isn’t the 2nd century AD. People (in the West) aren’t laboring in ignorance of the word of God. They’ve heard it. They’ve just chosen to reject it. Christ told His disciples not to waste time but, if they came to a city that would not listen to them, to shake the dust from their feet as a testimony against them. Just so, I do. “For many walk, of whom I have told you often (and now tell you weeping), that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things.”

Now, if an active homosexual came to me, distressed about his life, lost, without direction, looking to change something, yes, I would at some point get around to admonishing him for the evils of his lifestyle. Maybe not immediately, but at some point. His lifestyle is bad – bad period, bad for him, bad for society, and a gross offense and act of ingratitude against the living God. Since “love” means, by definition, desiring what is good for others, love would necessarily compel me to admonish this man to stop sinning. If he complained that my admonition was motivated my hatred, it would only be because he doesn’t understand.

So if I say to someone “your sexual lifestyle is harmful for you, body and soul, and your happiness depends on you reevaluating your life and making better choices” and all they heard was “being gay is an abomination” (btw, read my earlier post about how “being gay” isn’t a thing), I would conclude that that person is blinded by pride, shake the dust from my feet as a testimony against him, and move on. I cannot speak to people who refuse to listen to me.

 

[Seeker1961]

LOL. I think you misunderstand me.

I don’t do much of any admonishing these days, because there’s no point to it. As you say, it’s futile. **Most sinners are recalcitrant, utterly in thrall to their sin, blinded by pride. **Until and unless I see some glimmer of preliminary repentance, I can’t do anything for them, therefore I won’t waste my time. (Not that anything I could do could save them, only the Holy Spirit acting/speaking through me, having already moved them to grace).

I am often critical of CAFers for their “ABE” attitude – Always Be Evangelizing. I suspect it comes from the Protestant roots of CAF’s founders and the Protestant sensibilities of most of its posters. I recall one post a while back in which someone actually said that people should use their children to evangelize homosexuals! Craziness. This isn’t the 2nd century AD. People (in the West) aren’t laboring in ignorance of the word of God. They’ve heard it. They’ve just chosen to reject it. Christ told His disciples not to waste time but, if they came to a city that would not listen to them, to shake the dust from their feet as a testimony against them. Just so, I do.

Now, if an active homosexual came to me, distressed about his life, lost, without direction, looking to change something, yes, I would at some point get around to admonishing him for the evils of his lifestyle. Maybe not immediately, but at some point. His lifestyle is bad – bad period, bad for him, bad for society, and a gross offense and act of ingratitude against the living God. Since “love” means, by definition, desiring what is good for others, love would necessarily compel me to admonish this man to stop sinning. If he complained that my admonition was motivated my hatred, it would only be because he doesn’t understand.

So if I say to someone “your sexual lifestyle is harmful for you, body and soul, and you really need to reevaluate your life and think about making better choices” and all they heard was “being gay is an abomination” (btw, read my earlier post about how “being gay” isn’t a thing), I would conclude that that person is blinded by pride, shake the dust from my feet as a testimony against him, and move on. I cannot speak to people who refuse to listen to me.

So it’s THEIR fault if they don’t take your admonishment the way they should? You have no responsibility at all to try and approach people in a way that might be kinder or lead them to understanding?

Wow…ok. I totally disagree, but it’s only an opinion.

 

[sw85]

I’m not sure what you think “admonishing sinners” means but I suspect we’re not on the same page about it, Seeker.

 

[speakttruth]

That’s the real question that nobody seems to want to address. What is the goal? Reading this thread, the goal is to keep “our” definition of a word even if it hinders us in reaching people for Christ.

Please someone refute that idea, because it would be really sad if I was right about it.

seeker

I apologize if I sounded short , your family must be very happy for you… I pray for your continued success.
GB

 

[Elizabeth502]

This:

I am often critical of CAFers for their “ABE” attitude – Always Be Evangelizing. I suspect it comes from the Protestant roots of some of CAF’s founders and the Protestant sensibilities of many of its posters.

(And Protestant assumptions about evangelizing are not what Catholic assumptions are.)

 

[sw85]

I missed this earlier.

Another way of saying it:

We should meet the world on its terms and then bring it back with us, rather than condemn it in advance because it doesn’t use the language we do. How is it supposed to learn otherwise?

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. All that’s being said on my end is that the world has decided that certain things are real that aren’t and that this is impeding their ability to think about certain issues rationally and morally. To get them to think rationally and morally, we have to begin by explaining to them where their thought process has gone wrong which means, by extension, pointing out that words like “gay” and “homosexual” are not very fruitful ways of approaching these issues. (And, of course, they have to be open to this explanation).

If someone confides in me that they want to be Catholic but are afraid that they won’t be happy because they’re gay, I would begin by saying “But ‘gay’ isn’t a thing. It’s not a real distinction. It was made up by the world, 100 years ago, for medical and political reasons. What you are is a normal person with a certain set of desires, which have at least partly been conditioned or reinforced. The world wants you to believe that you fit into this arbitrary category, that your identity consists in fleeting impulses and appetites, but the world is lying. The world wants you to believe that you’re just a fleshy machine that mindlessly pursues stimulation and release, but I know you’re more than that and capable of living a truly good, and therefore truly happy, life. That life begins with repentance.”

Is that condemnatory?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I have a question regarding the bible verse from Leviticus. It says that a man should not lie with another man otherwise it’s an abomination. Firstly, what about women and women? Also, if God created everything, then why did he create something he is against? It seemed God was very stern in the OT and in the NT he seems so kind, always sending angels saying don’t be afraid.

I feel God loves me, despite me being gay.

Hi Peter, God most certainly loves you because you are His child and mean the world to Him - He’d literally (and did!) die for you

But God has also set an order for human nature which is best for us, that is, for fulfilling who were are as human beings. Instead of looking at Leviticus so much, look at what both Genesis and Jesus affirm: in the beginning God made them man and woman, and God saw that it was not good that man should live alone, and for this reason a man clings to his wife and the two become one flesh. God has made man and woman to be complementary because they have some inherent differences. Their love is also procreative, spiritually reflecting the Trinity (in fact, it is a shadow of the Holy Trinity), where the love of Father and Son beget the Spirit.

Remember, Peter, we have fallen natures - you only need to turn on the news to see that. Whether homosexual inclinations are a result of biology, socialisation or a mix of both, human beings are disordered in many ways, so you can’t just read the human condition as “what God made”.

If you feel same-sex attraction, Peter, that is sadly your cross to bear and I hope you do so faithfully according to the teachings of the Church. In reality, we all have our crosses, heterosexual people too, and I’m no more innocent of sin against God as anyone else. Seek forgiveness and repentance and I hope you will find love in the Church.

God bless you.

Jonathan

 

[Seeker1961]

This:

(And Protestant assumptions about evangelizing are not what Catholic assumptions are.)

funny…I always thought it came from the Gospel of Matthew.

Isn’t that what we do as humans? We find something good and we want to share it with our friends. Facebook and Twitter were built on that impulse.

I want my gay friends and co-workers to see why I’m happier now. I want them to have what I have, but I know that I can’t get them there by using terms that mean something very different to them.

I hope your approach works for you. I know mine works for me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

funny…I always thought it came from the Gospel of Matthew.

Funny, I thought it was obvious that sw85 was referring to a particular style of evangelization, a style not implied by the Gospel of Matthew, and since that’s my academic subject of specialty, I would know.

I hope your approach works for you. I know mine does.

You actually wouldn’t know what “my approach” is. Pretty presumptuous of you to think that you do.

And yes, my approach does work for me.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Seeker

So it’s THEIR fault if they don’t take your admonishment the way they should? You have no responsibility at all to try and approach people in a way that might be kinder or lead them to understanding?

My experience with gay people is that no matter how you might discuss the matter with them, they are not going to take it kindly or as an act of love and concern for their immortal souls. But if that can be done, how would YOU do it?

When talking with a practicing homosexual would you use euphemisms like “gay sex” when you are talking about sexual acts, or would you refer to these acts as “sodomy”? In other words, are you saying the word “sodomy” has a certain sting that the sodomite doesn’t want to hear, and that we should call it something other than sodomy to make him feel better, to feel that we love him after all?

Then I suppose if you went to confession after murdering someone, you would say that you should not have to use the word “murder” in the confessional because it has too much of a sting? Perhaps you could invent an expression, like “I gayed him”? Would that make you feel better? And if the priest replied, “I see, you gayed him” that also would make you feel more loved by the priest?

 

[RobbyS]

God is an equal-opportunity kind of guy. The same law logically applies to women as well.
He didn’t create homosexuality. He created reproduction, not a misuse of it.
Of course He still loves you. Nothing wrong with being gay, just don’t act on it, same as straight people.

I think it is a bit more like diabetes. There is a genetic factor and then there is a life-style factor. Neither is a “cause” in the real sense. Some people have to be very careful with what they eat, or they will get the disease. Others have no tendency toward it. Bad diet is good for no one, and people who eat too much, or eat the wrong foods will get it. People on good diets, whether their physical make-up, seldom will.

 

[fix]

I am often critical of CAFers for their “ABE” attitude – Always Be Evangelizing.

The problem I see, and it is exemplified very well in this thread, is that there is a subset of people that see any defense of the faith as driving people away. It is as if there is only one special way of approaching this one set of persons. We hear endlessly how uncharitable it is to point out the truth yet the rest of the population gets cast aside. Why must anyone use these particular words or else they are accused of not being pastoral? We have an obligation to all people not just a subset that seeks to be offended. If we adopt these contrived terms as part of our speech to “reach the culture” that means we have accustomed ourselves to this disingenuous speech. People other than those immersed in the “gay” culture can be reached too. They can learn that these terms dehumanize people.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I have a question regarding the bible verse from Leviticus. It says that a man should not lie with another man otherwise it’s an abomination. Firstly, what about women and women? Also, if God created everything, then why did he create something he is against? It seemed God was very stern in the OT and in the NT he seems so kind, always sending angels saying don’t be afraid.

I feel God loves me, despite me being gay.

God loves alcoholics despite them being alcoholics. However God calls people not to be alcoholics and gives them the grace to be sober, because alcoholism leads to self-destruction.

There are people who are attracted and addicted to many things. But this doesn’t mean that they should act out their attractions. No one is born gay, just as no one is born a pedophile. What can start out as a simple thought can turn into a temptation, and a fantasy, This is the last stage before the initial thought becomes an act of the will. Bd actions can become bad habits and consequently become addictions and even obsessions, which then the soul becomes a prisoner to. The problem today is that the world encourages souls to celebrates vice, when Christ and His Church are calling on people to uproot vices and turn away from sin, which leads away from God.

The reality is that a man is a homosexual only when he acts out homosexual acts; much like a man is only a glutton if he acts out his gluttony, likewise a thief is only a thief when he yields and acts out the temptation to . Everyone is tempted by one thing or another, but God call us to resist temptation and gives us the grace to do so. One needs to understand once and for all that life on earth is a pilgrimage toward God, and it is through our weaknesses and disordered passions that God sanctifies us when we die to ourselves and allow God to transform us. The more we die to ourselves the more our disordered passions die down and burn out. Turning to God means turning away from sin…

 

[Linux]

So you admonish away, you pat yourself on the back for your “act of love” and the person you admonished never comes anywhere near a Church again because what they heard was “being gay is an abomination”. All because they understand the term “gay” as meaning orientation and you understand it as behavior.

Again, what is the real goal here??

Gay isn’t just a label signifying a type of attraction, its a world view, both political and ideological, signifying a particular underlying philosophical belief about human sexuality in general.

Pro-gay ideology doesn’t just categorize human attraction, it also states the belief that if you are true to your sexual identity then you ought to act on your attraction toward the same sex, otherwise you are not being honest about your identity; you are being fake. The problem is, the only way that you can make rational sense of this belief is by reducing sexual identity to orientation alone, thereby rendering gender identity arbitrary and meaningless insofar as discerning what constitutes rational and acceptable sexual behaviour. To put it simply you have to begin with a nihilistic or non-teleological view of human sexuality in-order to justify homosexual activity. Thus instead of gender identity defining the natural end of sexual activity and thus sexual identity as a whole, attraction alone is willed to be that which defines sexual identity as a whole.

Hence accepting Homosexuality is in essence also an act of accepting metaphysical naturalism whether the proponent realises it or not.

However as soon as you include gender identity as a part of that which defines the natural end of sexual identity and therefore rational sexual behaviour; one has no choice but to accept that there is a conflict between the natural end of gender identity and homosexual attraction. Homosexual attraction in this case is impeding the natural end of ones gender identity. Thus there is a essential disorder in the unity of ones human nature when homosexual attractions are present, and there is only order when heterosexual attractions are present or re-established. Since in this case gender identity is the objective fundamental bases of human sexuality and is that by which we meaningfully have a sexuality, it is possible and correct to say without prejudice that homosexual attraction does not represent the natural end of human sexuality, and that if we truly value our gender identity, as human-beings, we ought not to act on attractions that do not reflect the natural end of our gender identity; because if we did we would be devaluing the fundamental basis of our sexual identity which is our gender identity.

If you have true self respect you will not engage in homosexual activity any-more than you would engage in eating somebodies faecal matter.

 

[Kolbe300]

My experience with gay people is that no matter how you might discuss the matter with them, they are not going to take it kindly or as an act of love and concern for their immortal souls.

Okay, so that’s been your experience. My experience when talking about Catholicism with gay people has actually been a very good experience. They have actually taken it very kindly. Maybe that says something? (Like the point several of us are trying to make).

When talking with a practicing homosexual would you use euphemisms like “gay sex” when you are talking about sexual acts, or would you refer to these acts as “sodomy”? In other words, are you saying the word “sodomy” has a certain sting that the sodomite doesn’t want to hear, and that we should call it something other than sodomy to make him feel better, to feel that we love him after all?

For starters, we probably shouldn’t automatically assume “sodomite” when someone says they’re gay. You’re obviously free to use whatever words you’d like. You can pick the ones that sting the most if you think that will get the job done. Based on what you said about your previous experience with discussing this with gay people, however, I’d say it’s not working very well.

The problem I see, and it is exemplified very well in this thread, is that there is a subset of people that see any defense of the faith as driving people away. It is as if there is only one special way of approaching this one set of persons. We hear endlessly how uncharitable it is to point out the truth yet the rest of the population gets cast aside.

You say it’s heard endlessly, but I don’t think a single person on this thread has said it’s uncharitable to point out the truth. I think what people are saying is that there are ways to point out the truth that will actually work. Insisting on “linguistic advantage” isn’t one of them.

 

[fix]

You say it’s heard endlessly, but I don’t think a single person on this thread has said it’s uncharitable to point out the truth. I think what people are saying is that there are ways to point out the truth that will actually work. Insisting on “linguistic advantage” isn’t one of them.

What some are saying is that one must accept the “gay” view to be charitable. That is not truth.

People are capable of hearing messages and asking questions without immediately claiming offense or lacking charity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Kolbe
**
For starters, we probably shouldn’t automatically assume “sodomite” when someone says they’re gay.**

Sodomy is at the heart of gay identity. There are some gays who are chaste, but I don’t think these people are the ones we are talking about.
**
You’re obviously free to use whatever words you’d like. You can pick the ones that sting the most if you think that will get the job done. **

I use the words used by St. Paul. They are good enough for him, they are good enough for me. He tells it like it is.

Based on what you said about your previous experience with discussing this with gay people, however, I’d say it’s not working very well.

You are right there. They want the euphemisms. I want the truth. So does St. Paul.

The truth sometimes does sting … as it should.

 

[Kolbe300]

What some are saying is that one must accept the “gay” view to be charitable. That is not truth.

Can you show me examples where people in this thread have said one must accept the “gay view”? Understanding that the word “gay” means different things to different people (especially outside of the Church) doesn’t mean one has to “accept” anything at all. Folks have made a case for using the language the world uses in order to be more effective. That certainly doesn’t mean we must accept the “gay view.”

Heck, use whatever word you want. Stick to nothing but the words the Church uses. Don’t ever say the word “gay” if you don’t want to. I just think we should realize that people use the word gay in many different ways. We should really avoid assuming what their “gay view” is because of a word they use.