B
- Status
G
goout
Guest
Does this make sense?
For instance, I am a man:
Attraction to a woman is part of my physical makeup. I am “wired” for it. That’s a good thing. Attraction drives us to conjugal union.
Morality is about our orientation to the good!
Lust comes when the will distorts that good thing. Lust is a movement of the will away from the good.
For example:
I see and am attracted (assume not my wife). No sin. Attraction is a good thing.
I look twice for no reason other than to appropriate for my own pleasure. Now I am lusting.
My mind wanders and builds a fire for a specific person where there cannot be one. Trouble. My attraction is dis-ordered, as it is not directed to the good of conjugal union.
I approach or speak to this person, or go home and satisfy this lust on the internet. Big trouble as I am encouraging and acting upon disordered lust.
I do not pretend to know the origin of homosexual attraction, but per se, it cannot be sinful until acted on. As a sexual attraction which seeks for completion, it is hard to make a judgment for immorality until acted on. We are wired for union.
Homosexuality cannot accomplish this complete union, so it is not rightly-ordered sexuality, but that does not mean it is sinful, unless it is acted upon. If the attraction is fostered or encouraged, you could make the case that is sinful.
I empathize with those who bear this. I have no idea why some live with a strong disordered attraction they didn’t choose.
For instance, I am a man:
Attraction to a woman is part of my physical makeup. I am “wired” for it. That’s a good thing. Attraction drives us to conjugal union.
Morality is about our orientation to the good!
Lust comes when the will distorts that good thing. Lust is a movement of the will away from the good.
For example:
I see and am attracted (assume not my wife). No sin. Attraction is a good thing.
I look twice for no reason other than to appropriate for my own pleasure. Now I am lusting.
My mind wanders and builds a fire for a specific person where there cannot be one. Trouble. My attraction is dis-ordered, as it is not directed to the good of conjugal union.
I approach or speak to this person, or go home and satisfy this lust on the internet. Big trouble as I am encouraging and acting upon disordered lust.
I do not pretend to know the origin of homosexual attraction, but per se, it cannot be sinful until acted on. As a sexual attraction which seeks for completion, it is hard to make a judgment for immorality until acted on. We are wired for union.
Homosexuality cannot accomplish this complete union, so it is not rightly-ordered sexuality, but that does not mean it is sinful, unless it is acted upon. If the attraction is fostered or encouraged, you could make the case that is sinful.
I empathize with those who bear this. I have no idea why some live with a strong disordered attraction they didn’t choose.
B
Bookcat
Guest
(just to comment on this one line by itself)
Depends one what one means.
If by “appropriate for my own pleasure” one means say sexual pleasure…then yes…certainly.
The “look twice” does not mean that one is lusting…(need to be clear here for some readers can scruple).
Now if one starts …one starts…engaging impure thoughts… one starts looking lustfully…well that for sure is of the order of lust.
G
goout
Guest
Well, one must know one’s self.
For me, I know where the second look leads me. And I still engage it plenty.
The beauty of grace is that every moment is made new, and at any point on the chain of temptation we can be renewed.
O
o_mlly
Guest
And objectively sinning. The moment the body takes pleasure (illicit) in the temptation, the thought ceases to be a temptation and becomes a sin.
I think there is another option and that is to do no more limiting the offense done to God. (And, get to confession.) “Big trouble” is the correct description when one extends lustful thought-acts to lustful physical-acts.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes of course.
But it is important not to call lust what is not…
Even if the second look *may *still be not ordered…does not mean per se it is lust.
Though one* could* engage in lust that point or such could point one down a path that could lead to lust. A second look per se does not = lust.
(this is not to say that one ought not have a reasonable concern for a reasonable practice of * custody of the eyes…certainly one ought).
R
Rau
Guest
The perils of phone posting.
It’s remarkable that you so readily draw such an equivalence.
You are fixated on illicit sexual acts and you may have missed this:
Sexual attraction - without qualification - is not equivalent to a “desire for illicit sex acts”. To see it in that way is to take a wholly negative view of our sexual nature - or at least of those unmarried. **Why does a man find a woman attractive in a way he can find no man attractive? On account of disorder? I think not. **But rather on account of his nature, a nature that in persons experiencing SSA is somehow damaged.
SSA is “objectively” disordered, while OSA is not so. The object of the former is such that it can lead nowhere good. That is not so with the latter. Sin is an act of the will, not of attractions. Neither attraction is the lust you so keenly wish to paint it as.
R
Rau
Guest
Does this make sense?
For instance, I am a man:
Attraction to a woman is part of my physical makeup. I am “wired” for it. That’s a good thing. Attraction drives us to conjugal union.
Morality is about our orientation to the good!
Lust comes when the will distorts that good thing. Lust is a movement of the will away from the good.
For example:
I see and am attracted (assume not my wife). No sin. Attraction is a good thing.
I look twice for no reason other than to appropriate for my own pleasure. Now I am lusting.
My mind wanders and builds a fire for a specific person where there cannot be one. Trouble. My attraction is dis-ordered, as it is not directed to the good of conjugal union.
I approach or speak to this person, or go home and satisfy this lust on the internet. Big trouble as I am encouraging and acting upon disordered lust.
I do not pretend to know the origin of homosexual attraction, but per se, it cannot be sinful until acted on. As a sexual attraction which seeks for completion, it is hard to make a judgment for immorality until acted on. We are wired for union.
Homosexuality cannot accomplish this complete union, so it is not rightly-ordered sexuality, but that does not mean it is sinful, unless it is acted upon. If the attraction is fostered or encouraged, you could make the case that is sinful.
I empathize with those who bear this. I have no idea why some live with a strong disordered attraction they didn’t choose.
O
o_mlly
Guest
R
Rau
Guest
I agree bookcat. And switching to the unmarried, Who would marry were there never a second look, or a third, etc. Enchantment, delight in each other including appearance, a desire to hold hands, to embrace, to kiss this is all part a good and proper sexual attraction between those free to marry. That which gives rise to this process is unchosen (and scientifically not understood btw) and cannot be sinful. To acknowledge and accept and pursue those attractions is good. And to act accordingly, prudently within limits is good.
Where a person experiences the same toward one of the same sex, then that is disordered sexual attraction. That which gives rise to those attractions (we call it SSA) is unchosen, not scientifically understood and not sinful. The unchosen “experience” of these attractions - which at an early stage are not about sexual acts - are not sinful, but as the catechism say, they are likely a trial.
J
jjr9
Guest
I believe the Magisterium presenting what is false as true in the name of the Lord’s Church is; important, rare
and unauthorized by the Lord.
I believe this is not a tiny little detail.I understand that normalization of SS behavior is sadly the norm today and
the fiction of a so called “homosexual person” who is incapable of OSA makes a compelling argument, all be it
untrue, if one sets aside a morality defined by the Lord.
What I have seen in press reports is very disturbing:
( Ref: lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-reinhard-marx-vs.-cardinal-and-saint-peter-damian-do-homosexual-un )
According to Cardinal Reinhard Marx, homosexual relationships have “worth,” a worth
that must be recognized by the Catholic Church.
“We have to respect the decisions of people,” Marx told the media last week in Dublin after
delivering a speech at Trinity College, according to a recent report in the Irish Times.
“We have to respect the decisions of people. We have to respect also, as I said in the first
synod on the family, some were shocked but I think it’s normal, you cannot say that a
relationship between a man and a man and they are faithful [that] that is nothing, that has
no worth,” he said.
Consequently, according to Marx, the Church owes homosexuals an apology for its historical
treatment of homosexuals. “As Church and society, we have to say ‘Sorry, Sorry,’” Marx said.
He added that the Church should support “regulating” homosexual partnerships. “We as church
cannot be against it.”
I believe Cardinal Marx’s remarks the predictable fruit of this error by the Magisterium; accepting the
mythical “homosexual person” as real. While the official position of the Magisterium is not as far down
the path of accepting the mythical “homosexual person” as real, make no mistake the Magisterium is
on the same path as Cardinal Marx.
I believe no one can show this idea of exclusive SSA in any Church teaching prior to 1993 because it
does not exist. With the same rational Cardinal Marx’s view could be inserted into “Church teaching”
if you believe exclusive SSA is in Church teaching prior to 1993 can you please show this to me?
Cardinal Marx’s statements were made in a public forum and I have already seen people present this
as the Church’s view; while I hope you and I know that this is not the case, this is the perception that
has already begun to take root. Even if the Magisterium is not yet ready to correct it’s fundamental
error of accepting the “homosexual person” as real shouldn’t they at least publicly condemn the view
presented by Cardinal Marx?
I prefer to ask the Lord the Lord calls me to continue.
God bless
R
Rau
Guest
As you now being petulant and sarcastic and avoiding the substance, perhaps it is better to end the conversation?
B
Bookcat
Guest
And such would be a *mistaken *belief on your part.
J
jjr9
Guest
If you believe anyone experiences an exclusive SSA please supply the reference that supports
your belief.
God bless
G
goout
Guest
I disagree.
Unless I am saying
“Is that Sue Jones from the office? The sun is in my eyes and I can’t really tell from the shape of her legs if that’s her or not, I better look again”.
That would not be lust. That would just be me looking to see if it’s really Sue Jones.
If I say, “wow she is attractive and I am looking again”, that is lust, by def.
That is me saying “Sue Jones has some great legs and I am gonna linger my eyes on that (objectification) for a second, just cause it’s pleasing”.
(now, let’s not get carried away with anxiety over this, because on the gravity scale of 1-100 this is probably a 1 and is nothing to be scrupulous about).
Custody of the eyes should come naturally with practice.
B
Bookcat
Guest
There is no need to do so.
It* does **not *matter.
One scientist can disagree with another or one study with another.
It does not matter here.
The Catechism is* covering all the possibilities*.
If person D does not experience any other attraction that to their same gender - what are they do do? Follow what the Church Teaches. It applies to them.
If person A experiences some attraction to their own gender and some attraction to the opposite gender - what are they to do? Follow what the Church Teaches. It applies to them.
No one can say “hey it does not apply to me cause I only experience SSA” or “I experience both…” The teachings regarding such apply to all those who experience such.
The Church is not mistaken. It is a personal subjective framing of things and investing meaning in the use of a phrase -one that has been used now for *many *years by the Church that is mistaken here.
The Church has very long pastoral experience here - and such is reflected in the Catechism and her other documents. Such as:
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
By the CDF
It is important to read it all with in the context of the total teaching of the Church.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No.
G
goout
Guest
How about the testimony of individuals?
Will you take my word that I experience exclusively hetero attraction?
What else is there besides the testimony of individuals as to what they deal with?
And how could you prove otherwise?
It’s not a matter of references like that.
Some people have both attractions.
G
goout
Guest
I don’t want to derail, but it is the appropriation of another person for one’s own pleasure, however insignificant it might be. It might be merely an act of the heart and the eyes, but…
It doesn’t serve the good that sexuality is ordered to.
Christ tells us that not all lust is explicit action.
- Status