"homosexual person" myth or Truth

[Rau]

Outside of marriage what do you think sexual attraction moves one toward? Illicit sexual acts.

My statement sounds. Your characterisation of sexual attraction a Lust is not sound. To experience a sexual attraction is not sinful. How the will responds is what matters.

 

[Bookcat]

Outside of marriage what do you think sexual attraction moves one toward?

Asking a girl out on a date.

and eventually…

It moves one along with other things…towards the Holy Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[Bookcat]

Now lustful thoughts or seeking sexual pleasure etc or consenting to such…well that is another matter. That is the stuff of serious sin.

 

[Thorolfr]

Now lustful thoughts or seeking sexual pleasure etc or consenting to such…well that is another matter. That is the stuff of serious sin.

So is it even wrong for married couples to seek sexual pleasure in their marriage? Or maybe they should always try to make sex as un-pleasurable as possible.

 

[Bookcat]

So is it even wrong for married couples to seek sexual pleasure in their marriage? Or maybe they should always try to make sex as un-pleasurable as possible.

The discussion there was about those “outside of marriage”.

It is not the meaning or aim per se of marriage (which is the unitive and procreative)- but yes it is rather part of nature of the marital act.

Sexual pleasure is part of the marital act as God has designed it…

…its “place” is yes in marriage.

Not outside of marriage.

 

[o_mlly]

As I noted:

Sexual attraction towards ones fiancee can yes be ordered and chaste.

Such is not meaning lust or seeking or consent to sexual pleasure.

But merely finding ones fiancee attractive.

Again, it is important to understand the difference between the passions of “attraction” and “sexual attraction.”

Most certainly, all moved by attraction to others are moved to the good. However, anyone moved by sexual attraction toward anyone other than one’s spouse is moved toward evil.

Attraction is a movement of the soul to love (agape) another for God’s sake. Attraction is never a temptation.

Sexual attraction to one other than one’s spouse (eros) is a temptation. Temptations only leads to sin.

We pray “lead us not into temptation” to obtain the graces to avoid that which always precedes the sin. If we continue to desire the temptations rather than fear them then we reject the very grace we pray for and are insincere.

As it relates to sexual temptations, if we truly fear these temptations and accept the graces offered to “lead us not” then we will cease having thoughts that will only lead us to sin. We are obliged to avoid proximate occasion to sin.

If one does not have custody of one’s eyes and upon beholding the person experiences the sexual attraction temptation then one has not disciplined themselves to subordinate their appetites to reason nor their will to God’s. It is one thing if the one who lacks custody of his eyes is a 15 year old with raging hormones and quite another if one is 20 + years old.

Happy New Year on this day, the celebration of the Solemnity of Mary. May the Blessed Virgin Mary cover us with her cloak of chastity.

 

[Rau]

Again, it is important to understand the difference between the passions of “attraction” and “sexual attraction.”

Most certainly, all moved by attraction to others are moved to the good. However, anyone moved by sexual attraction toward anyone other than one’s spouse is moved toward evil.

Attraction is a movement of the soul to love (agape) another for God’s sake. Attraction is never a temptation.

Sexual attraction to one other than one’s spouse (eros) is a temptation. Temptations only leads to sin.

So it is wrong if such attraction arises the day prior to the wedding and good if the day after. We are speaking of attractions that exist by virtue of our sexuality - which is part and parcel of us, and not something which may only be acknowledged after marriage.

Sexual attraction is part of that which moves us to the good of marriage.

 

[o_mlly]

So it is wrong if such attraction arises the day prior to the wedding and good if the day after.

The question seems to imply that that the sacrament of matrimony is just another day in the life, a trivial event without much meaning. I think not.

We are speaking of attractions that exist by virtue of our sexuality - which is part and parcel of us, and not something which may only be acknowledged after marriage.

Wrong, my friend. We are talking about the temptation to sexual attraction that exists because of Original Sin.

Christ, fully human, had all the passions of human beings. But unlike fallen man, Christ’s appetites/desires were not antecedent to His reason. Rather His passions were subordinate to His reason. Christ permitted His passions to move Him only if His reason first indicated that the object beheld was proper to the passion.

We are born with antecedent appetites. Without grace, our passions move us when we behold improper objects. If Christ just called us to mediocrity then we could continue to have and even desire temptations to illicit sexual acts. But He called us to perfection and merited for us the graces to be perfect as His heavenly father is perfect. We are to imitate Christ. We are called to subordinate our passions to our reason. That is what we call custody of our senses.

 

[goout]

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

It’s a fine line but it’s important not to present too negative a view of sexual attraction, per se.
What’s the name of that heresy… where sex is seen as an ugly but necessary thing?

 

[Bookcat]

Again, it is important to understand the difference between the passions of “attraction” and “sexual attraction.”

Seems your defining some things differently than we are.

But then again it is true this can get into too large a topic…(and one that actually off topic.)

The best book to read is “Love and Responsibility” by St. John Paul II prior to his becoming Pope.

He talks about the awareness of the sexual values of the body and attraction and the need to* bind them tightly to the value of the person* etc and that while that is one part of the how to order things…chastity and modesty…the development of love…where sin enters etc etc and a great deal more on the subject.

A superb work.

Yes Happy New Year

A blessed Lords Day and Solemnity of the Mother of God

 

[goout]

Seems your defining some things differently than we are.

But then again it is true this can get into too large a topic…(and one that actually off topic.)

The best book to read is “Love and Responsibility” by St. John Paul II prior to his becoming Pope.

He talks about the awareness of the sexual values of the body and attraction and the need to* bind them tightly to the value of the person* etc and that while that is one part of the how to order things…where sin enters etc etc and a great deal more on the subject.

A superb work.

And a very tough read. I had to read it twice. A philosophy background would have helped.
TOB exposes his thinking even more and is a little bit more readable.

 

[o_mlly]

It’s a fine line but it’s important not to present too negative a view of sexual attraction, per se.
What’s the name of that heresy… where sex is seen as an ugly but necessary thing?

Fair enough. Perhaps we should more specifically define this particular temptation as the desire or attraction to illicit sex acts. The desire or attraction to licit sex is always good as the object is always and only our spouse (and for the contentious) only under good circumstances.

Defined as such, there is nothing different in the sexual temptations to all homosexual acts or illicit heterosexual acts.

 

[Rau]

Fair enough. Perhaps we should more specifically define this particular temptation as the desire or attraction to illicit sex acts. The desire or attraction to licit sex is always good as the object is always and only our spouse (and for the contentious) only under good circumstances.

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.

To return closer to topic, the experience of SSA is not itself sinful. The church writes:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

Were SSA = Lust, it would be a sin. Were the sexual attraction of a man to a woman = Lust, it too would be a sin. These things are not themselves lust, and not sinful. It’s how the will responds that determines whether we sin or respond virtuously. But as the church says, the 2 cases are different - the different object (same sex vs opposite sex) means that in the first case the attraction can never lead to a good end, whereas in the 2nd case it can through marriage.

 

[o_mlly]

…]
To return closer to topic, the experience of SSA is not itself sinful. The church writes:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
…]

Just as true and more general and inclusive is:
“Although the particular inclination to illicit sexual acts is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

The OP challenges, I think, the use of “homosexual” as an adjective to the word “person” and I agree. We are all born with vicious inclinations. One of which is often for many the disordered desire to commit illicit sexual acts.

Using this terminology puts us all in the same category as souls in need of salvation each with different crosses to bear as it relates to our sexual lives. Therefore, the phrase “homosexual person” need not be used as homosexual acts are as evil as are illicit heterosexual acts.

The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion. If we reject His grace refusing to order our appetites to only the good then we subject ourselves to ongoing temptations. We willfully remain slaves to our disordered desires.

1994 When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.
1996 Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification. . . . But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.45
2340 Whoever wants to remain faithful to his baptismal promises and resist temptations will want to adopt the means for doing so: self-knowledge, practice of an ascesis adapted to the situations that confront him, obedience to God’s commandments, exercise of the moral virtues, and fidelity to prayer. "Indeed it is through chastity that we are gathered together and led back to the unity from which we were fragmented into multiplicity."128

2341 The virtue of chastity comes under the cardinal virtue of temperance, which seeks to permeate the passions and appetites of the senses with reason.

 

[Rau]

Just as true and more general and inclusive is:
"Although the particular inclination to illicit sexual acts is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."

Is your thinking that SSA is no more than a temptation? Could you or I wake up tomorrow and experience it? I think not. How does a temptation itself explain the lack of attraction to the opposite sex? Evidently there is more to it. The church spoke of “inclination”, not temptation and your altered text above distorts the church’s intent. SSA specifically predisposes persons to a class of temptations. A more “normal” sexuality predisposes one to a different class of temptations. It does not incline one specifically to illicit acts, as does SSA. And there are medical conditions that predispose persons to yet other kinds of behaviours and with varying levels of culpability). And then there are persons who just make bad choices.

Using this terminology puts us all in the same category as souls in need of salvation each with different crosses to bear as it relates to our sexual lives. Therefore, the phrase “homosexual person” need not be used as homosexual acts are as evil as are illicit heterosexual acts.

You may as well suggest that homosexuality required no mention at all - fornication should have covered it? There’s a sense in which that is true. However, Homosexuality is specifically addressed by the Church to respond to suggestions that persons who’s attractions (something “preceding” temptation) run in that direction have by virtue of that fact a special license to live accordingly.

 

[o_mlly]

You may as well suggest that homosexuality required no mention at all - fornication should have covered it? There’s a sense in which that is true. However, Homosexuality is specifically addressed by the Church to respond to suggestions that persons who’s attractions (something “preceding” temptation) run in that direction have by virtue of that fact a special license to live accordingly.

The sexual attraction to one who is not one’s spouse is just as disordered as the one who is sexually attracted to another of the same sex. Neither have a “special license to live accordingly.”

We’ve been here before and agreed to what you now argue against. Change your mind?

Read the Catechism: "… human nature has not been totally corrupted … " The sure inference of the above is that** human nature has been partially corrupted**. That which is corrupted is disordered. Disordered acts can only proceed from a disordered nature. Ordered acts can proceed from a disordered nature iff God initiates the ordered or good act.

If you want to take the view that we’re all disordered, then the person suffering same sex attraction is not singled out all.

 

[Rau]

The sexual attraction to one who is not one’s spouse is just as disordered as the one who is sexually attracted to another of the same sex. Neither have a “special license to live accordingly.”

We’ve been here before and agreed to what you now argue against. Change your mind?

I have agreed to be very little that you’ve written. (I’m not sure if any poster had shared with you!). So no, no change of mind.

SSA is “objectively” disordered, while OSA is not so. The object of the former is such that it can lead noehete good. That is not do with the latter. Your overly negative

 

[Rau]

The sexual attraction to one who is not one’s spouse is just as disordered as the one who is sexually attracted to another of the same sex. Neither have a “special license to live accordingly.”

We’ve been here before and agreed to what you now argue against. Change your mind?

I have agreed to very little that you’ve written. So no, no change of mind.

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.

 

[Rau]

Fair enough. Perhaps we should more specifically define this particular temptation as the desire or attraction to illicit sex acts.

You may be discussing that specific desire, but it is not what I (or bookcat) have been describing.

 

[o_mlly]

I have agreed to be very little that you’ve written. (I’m not sure if any poster had shared with you!). So no, no change of mind.

SSA is “objectively” disordered, while OSA is not so. The object of the former is such that it can lead noehete good. That is not do with the latter. Your overly negative

Did you miss a few keystrokes there? If not, I assure you that In some cases I would want to be what I’ve written. And if “noehete” is a foreign (American Indian?) word, I’m afraid I don’t know what it means.

Fortunately, it is not very important to me that others agree with me; only that I possess the truth.

Apparently, either you have not kept up with the posts or simply are being contentious. “Attraction to illicit sexual acts” is disordered. Same sex attraction is just one of several illicit sexual attractions (e.g., fornication, adultery, masturbation). Therefore, as you previous did agree (and now I guess recant), “the person suffering same sex attraction is not singled out” just as the OP suggests.