E
edwest2
Guest
Right. What was I thinking?
Ed
“Hi. Can we go out for coffee sometime?”
Nah. Let’s just skip to the sex part. Relationships are messy… etc.
- Status
Ed
“Hi. Can we go out for coffee sometime?”
Nah. Let’s just skip to the sex part. Relationships are messy… etc.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I don’t know why jjr9 is bothered by the term “homosexual person”. Would he also be bothered by “fat person” or “thin person” or “person with brown hair” or “tall person” or “short person,” etc.?
P
psalm90
Guest
The same sort of issue comes up in describing “diabetics” versus “persons with diabetes.”
The latter humanizes people more than calling them by a derivative of the disease they have.
To answer the question, I think “homosexual person” is fairly close to the truth. I don’t see anything untrue about it.
meltzerboy
New member
You’ve touched on an important point here. The term “homosexual person” does NOT identify people only in terms of their homosexuality but rather humanizes them, which using the term “homosexual” alone does not do (particularly with the article “a homosexual”). On the contrary, saying the latter stigmatizes a homosexual person. The same is true in referring to someone as a diabetic (as you mention), or a schizophrenic, or a depressive instead of a person who suffers from diabetes, schizophrenia, or depression. Physicians and (clinical) psychologists do often use the shorter form, for better or worse, in part because it is shorter and more medical-sounding although it depersonalizes the individual.
meltzerboy
New member
Not to mention those who suffer alone in silence and fear or those who attempt or commit suicide.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Lust is the vehement disorder of sexual desires, as in the case of the so-called “homosexual lifestyle” or the widespread phenomenon of “living together.” Lust reduces human sexuality to genitality.
ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=362724
The temptation to lust for another is not lust, just as the temptation to murder is not murder.
The only proper object to our sexual desire is our lawful spouse of the opposite sex. All who allow their sexual appetite to arouse them in the presence of an improper object commit the objective sin of lust. Lust is not called one of the seven deadly temptations but one of the seven deadly sins.
In the general sense, temptation occurs to all men as a result of Original Sin. We have disordered appetites. Concupiscence causes those appetites of the body to be antecedent to reason. Through grace, we learn to subordinate our appetites and order them to our reason and our will to God’s will. This was the human condition before the fall. Before the fall, reason preceded appetite and did not allow an appetite to move the body unless the object presented to the appetite was proper to it.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I’m not exactly sure what the OPs point is. But I do think the term ‘homosexual person’ can be problematic. I think given the current political and moral climate it is better to use the term persons who have SSA or persons who engage in same sex activity.
Also I do think man chooses to do things which makes him an outcast fully expecting that and even willing it. Some people want to be outsiders. Some people want to thumb their nose at others. Some people enjoy saying the world is against them. At one time homosexuality was thought by some or even many to stem from a problem of selfishness and narcissism. If so then it would not be inconsistent to be willing to be an outsider.
Being a homosexual isn’t much of a stigma in our society today. In fact it can be something celebrated by many. They have days to be prideful of their sexual proclivities. There is no comparable day for heterosexuals. Of course maybe the idea of pride about your sexual activity is a clue to the fact it is disordered.
I don’t think your conclusion is warranted. First as Christians we have the issue of Satan and the fallen angels. They had incredible intellects and knowledge and were not influenced by corporal desires. Yet they fell. They made a choice to do what they knew was wrong and gravely wrong.
Also I do think man chooses to do things which makes him an outcast fully expecting that and even willing it. Some people want to be outsiders. Some people want to thumb their nose at others. Some people enjoy saying the world is against them. At one time homosexuality was thought by some or even many to stem from a problem of selfishness and narcissism. If so then it would not be inconsistent to be willing to be an outsider.
Being a homosexual isn’t much of a stigma in our society today. In fact it can be something celebrated by many. They have days to be prideful of their sexual proclivities. There is no comparable day for heterosexuals. Of course maybe the idea of pride about your sexual activity is a clue to the fact it is disordered.
People can certainly change their mind about the goodness of something after indulging in it. I would think most drug addicts or alcoholics started out thinking indulging was good for them. If they reach a point when they no longer see that as so they may try to get ‘straightened out’. This can be hard because they’ve developed a habit of indulging in the bad thoughts and behavior. The same could be for homosexuality.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Jjr9 is investing it with more meaning than is intended by the Church.
This is where their confusion enters into things along with their narrowing homosexual attractions to simply temptations.
Thus they are taken aback by their* perception *that the phrase intends to give some deep metaphysical defining of a category of persons based on a temptation.
The Church is not trying to define a person by their temptation - the person is the person - and persons they are not defined per se by their temptation such is not their “personal identity”. They are persons with such tendencies - such attractions.
They are persons though as persons.
And better yet if they are Christians they are Christians …they are “in Christ”…they Children of God …temples of the Holy Spirit…etc
B
Bookcat
Guest
Best to look to the Catechism. There is no need for the word “vehement”.
Lust is also that disordered desire that can happen within a person.
If they consent to it - then they sin. If not - then they can even act in virtue against that lust that is stirred in them.
**
Catechism of the Catholic Church**
2351: “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.”
Also:
2529 The ninth commandment warns against lust or carnal concupiscence.
2514 St. John distinguishes three kinds of covetousness or concupiscence: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and pride of life. In the Catholic catechetical tradition, the ninth commandment forbids carnal concupiscence; the tenth forbids coveting another’s goods.
2515 Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
[/quote]
A
Acolyte
Guest
O
o_mlly
Guest
The late Fr. Torraco included “vehement” in defining lust. Best to cite authorities like Fr. Torraco.
One is always safe in citing the Catechism’s footnotes as authoritative.
II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a*** desire ***contrary to the eternal law."121
121 St. Augustine, Contra Faustum 22
L 42,418; St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I-II,71,6.“Sin, then, is any transgression in deed, or word, or desire, of the eternal law.” St. Augustine
B
Bookcat
Guest
Just because that one Priest included the word “vehement” in his discussion of lust does not mean that such is part per se of the definition of lust. Lust of course can and often is vehement but that is not part and partial of the definition.
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a Pope rather has more authority than a single Priest…).
**
Catechism of the Catholic Church**
2351: “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.”
scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm
B
Bookcat
Guest
What is also one of them?
Anger.
Yet anger too can happen to one without any consent -without any sin.
That “anger” that is experienced is experienced against the will and yes is also a temptation. Yet it too is one of the “seven deadly sins”.
Only when there is consent is such a sin.
(anger of course can often also be venial matter…unlike the rather grave nature of lust).
(for more on the seven deadly sins - or better yet “capital sins” see my posts on the subject - some get confused that such is the only deadly (mortal) sins or that every sin that falls under such - are mortal).
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes and the important word there is the “allow” - which involves knowledge and consent.
Without such consent - disordered desires that happen to someone can all occur without a person sinning. Yet the disordered desire is present (but not willed…).
O
o_mlly
Guest
Anger is a deadly sin if anger opposes as its object the true and good.
Anger at a present evil is not a sin and is a morally good movement of the soul.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
Many uninformed straight people use the term “homosexual lifestyle” when talking about gay people. Can you tell me what you think this lifestyle entails? Is there also a heterosexual equivalent called the “heterosexual lifestyle” (I’ve rarely heard that term used)?
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes correct it is a deadly sin (mortal) objectively if there is grave matter - in that sense of the term. And it is a deadly sin (mortal) subjectively if there is grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent.
(but the term “seven deadly sins” can lead some readers to mistaken conclusions …see my post on such forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14340062&postcount=3)
And as you can now see just because something is listed under the seven deadly sins - that does not mean that if it is “present” yet not willed - not consented to - it is a sin.
J
jjr9
Guest
I am unaware of any reference that provides a truly right and just reason to believe anyone has an exclusive SSA.
Can you provide one?
I am always willing to examine my conceptions and change them if wrong.
God bless
B
Bookcat
Guest
- Status