Homosexuality ~ A Deep Confliction in my Heart

[Avenara]

I second, third, and fourth that PuzzleAnnie. The harder you push someone, bash them in the head, and try and drill anything into their head the harder they resist you. It doesn’t matter if it is you trying to express they are doing something that is destroying their life or not. The best way to witness for me was always simply telling them my opinion and living my life in a way that shows them exactly what I think is right or wrong. Witnessing by example. It’s a blessed thing.

You are also right that if you push someone away, you can’t be there to catch them when they inevidably fall…and if homosexuality is as destructive as I think it might be now, they will fall and they will fall HARD. I love them. I love them all. I want them to have a happy and easy life. I want to remind them that swimming downstream is easier than upstream and I want to be there to support them throughout their lives.

Today I was talking to one of them. He said to me, as long as you respect my decision there won’t be any problems. This is what I wrote to him.

Sorry, I had to look up the word as I wasn’t preticularly sure exactly what respect means…

"Deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect’s right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.

“To show regard or consideration for: to respect someone’s rights.”

“To refrain from intruding upon or interfering with: to respect a person’s privacy.”

These things I can do. I can respect your right and your decision. There is one definition I of respect I cannot give.

“To hold in esteem or honor: I cannot respect a cheat.”

"The condition of being esteemed or honored: to be held in respect. "

To that end, I think it’s obvious. I can’t consider something I think as wrong to be held in great esteme or honorable because obviously I think it is wrong, but I can hold YOU in great esteme and honor and I won’t interfere with your decision in the least and I accept this is something you are, that it’s a part of you that I wouldn’t change. Is that fair?

The reason I said that, is we all have free will. I accept he has free will. I accept he will do what he wants. To that end, yes, he has my respect. But mind you HE has my respect, not the action. You can’t shove your faith down someone’s throat as much as you may want to and sometimes the subtle “preaching by your actions” is the only way to nudge them on the right path. I don’t know, maybe I should’ve said that differently? I just wish this could be nice and easy and I could just TRUST God like I’m supposed to. I miss being a kid…I certainly never questioned my faith then…

 

[FightingFat]

In my own case, I was blessed with a very rapid healing process.
Once I had given up my homosexual practices, and embraced Mary as an ideal of femininity (more on this next week), I very quickly ceased to find other women attractive. Within a few short years, I have been blessed with a husband whom I love tremendously, and with two wonderful children on whom to practice those maternal virtues that I once eschewed.
Of course, there are many people whose wounds run deeper than mine did, and it is to these that we are called reach out — with charity, with compassion and the Good News of a God who offers healing and forgiveness.

ncregister.com/site/article/1852/

 

[FCEGM]

Another thing I’ve been noticing is a lot of people seem to say that the body was definately created for only a man and a woman’s body to fit together. So while two men obviously fit together and if you consider fingers two women, it isn’t nearly as fullfilling. I have that right, right?

If I’m following you, the sexual side of a man and a woman being together feeds their soul. It bonds their souls together. So it’s not just a mating of physical bodies but of spiritual souls as well. You are saying that two men and two women can’t achieve that because our bodies were only meant to achieve that when a man and woman do it together.

So even if someone is homosexual, even if someone honestly loves that other person with all their heart, they will never feel the spiritual mating of souls that a heterosexual couple will feel? If I’m right and understanding you right, that explains exactly why God doesn’t like us doing it. It really would be harmful to us and our souls both. We would be baring ourselves from being able to do something we were meant to do, just like not eating any food damages us because we are supposed to eat.

Well, here is to hoping I’ve solved my mystery…

If you will read through some of the articles at the COURAGE website (including testimonies), I think you will discover further the wisdom of Christ’s teaching through His Church:

couragerc.net/

 

[Avenara]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is really helping me understand things. I’m learning so much. It’s funny…I’m looking through all the things a Homosexual would need to look through to understand fully and I’m not even Homosexual. I love the irony there. I’m going to look through the Courage site straight away!

 

[blessedtoo]

I’m honestly looking for an answer that will ensure I never question this again. I’m honestly looking for an answer that will make me feel like I’m following God truly and completely, accepting him and being humble. I’m admitting to all of you that I’m faltering with this. I’m failing God. I’m sinning by not simply accepting him with a childlike adoration and trust, but forgive me this, pick me up, and help me figure this out. Help me by giving me the facts and opening my eyes.

Dear friend,
When I returned to the Church after 27 years, this issue was the hardest one for me to understand. I was terrified of confronting it, for my life had been lived immersed in this sin as well as many others. Nearly every friend I had (and still do!) was an active homosexual. My older sister has been in a homosexual relationship for 20 years. How on earth could I ever accept God’s word on this and still love my friends and family? You have already taken the first step by opening your heart. I believe God is extremely pleased with you!

I avoided most books on this topic for quite some time but eventually realized I had to educate myself to fully understand. I found this book extremely helpful:
amazon.com/Truth-About-Homosexuality-Cry-Faithful/dp/0898705835/ref=sr_1_5/002-4342166-0872050?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175012197&sr=8-5
I highly recommend it.

Having been so involved in the lifestyle itself, and having an insider’s perspective helped me in the long run because I was able to identify with the real issues underlying homosexuality. Rather than just dealing with superficial appearances, I knew for a fact that the complicated emotional, spiritual, and psychological problems that existed in the lives of my homosexual friends were not steering them toward healthy futures, but rather to the acceptance of the cultural “normalization” of a lifestyle that, up until 30 years ago, was unanimously considered a disorder. You have to remember that it is only in the very recent past that our society has been pursuaded to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is just okey dokey.

The other most important thing I did was to pray, pray, pray. I prayed that God would open my heart to acceptance, I pray that God will open the hearts of all my friends and family, and I pray for folks like you who are struggling to understand something that unfortunately is now considered quite counter-cultural.

You can also do a search on CAF for many, many threads on this topic. You will find many folks with SSA who post on CAF and discuss their walk with Christ.

 

[Avenara]

BlessedToo, you are one of the people I really hoped to hear from…people that let me know I’m not alone and show me the things that helped them to understand. People that stumbled on this too and still managed to get back up. It’s so nice to be encouraged and told that I’m not a monster for not understanding and that my desire to understand is a good thing. I didn’t think it was good to hide this confusion and struggle anymore when it was costing me my faith in God. I don’t want to be without Him. Life is so miserable without Him. I don’t want to feel like I’m shaming Him anymore, but the only way I’ll be able to accept this is by understanding so here I am, wanting to understand. I can’t wait to beg my husband to take me to the bookstore. It might have to wait two weeks…we are a new couple without a lot of money but this is very important to me. So I’m going to write down the book titles and authors recommended here.

You know what else? I feel like I’ve come home. Right now. Talking to everyone here. I feel like I’ve come home. It’s an amazing feeling that I’ve longed for for so very long…

 

[Jennifer123]

I’m so happy for you that you are finding some peace and healing here.
If it hasn’t already been recommended, may I suggest the book “Beyond Gay”? beyondgay.com/ It’s written by a former homosexual now a practicing Catholic.

It really helped me learn a lot about this topic as I struggled with learning of my brother’s homosexuality, the homosexuality of others in my family and how to deal with that in a truly loving and Christian way.

God Bless.

 

[Avenara]

So far I have John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, The Truth About Homosexuality: The Cry of the Faithful by John F. Harvey, and your suggestion of Beyond Gay by David Morrison. I also now have some links to tide me over until I can get those books! This is fabulous. I’m so glad I came here. This should definately answer my questions and doubts.

 

[sruyle]

You said in the original post: “I’m not happy being told to just have faith on this, just trust God, just listen to the scriptures”

Quite honestly that comment scares me a little. If you’re saying that because you want to know the WHY behind your question then fine, but one should always trust in God and listen to the scriptures even when we don’t understand. I pray that my response will help shed the light on this subject that you need.

I have come to the conclusion that homosexual acts are not more wrong than sexual acts between heterosexuals outside of the marriage covenant. Grave Sin is Grave Sin. God does not withhold his love from any of his children. Jesus Christ died for the sins of all those who are willing to accept him and his teachings. Scripture is clear when it comes to sexual acts outside the marriage covenant as listed by a number of previous posts. As much as I may want to have sex with a woman who is not my wife my wanting does not make the act any less sinful. If I had homosexual inclinations it doesn’t change the situation. Any sexual acts outside the marriage covenant is sinful.

So why is the marriage covenant only between one man and one woman? Because that is how God made us Male & Female. If I give myself completely to my wife and my wife does the same our combined gift of self is so powerful that it creates new life. Our gift of self to each other goes beyond our want of pleasure. No matter how much a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman their love for each other cannot create new life. If you remove the purpose of child bearing from the sexual act you resort to selfishness and sexual disorder which lead to things like Pornography, Masturbation, Homosexuality, Bestiality, etc… If the sole purpose of sex is self pleasure we reduce our human dignity. We basically give God the middle finger and tell him our way is better than his and that he screwed up when he made us.

As much as your homosexual friends love each other their love is not what God intended and God has given us the free will to Love Him as he loves us or to love ourselves more than He. The choice is ours. I’m not suggesting that your homosexual friends are consciously choosing to love themselves more than God but by their actions (if sexual in nature they) they are rejecting God’s intended creation.

Just because something doesn’t appear dangerous doesn’t mean that it isn’t. God does love people who consider themselves to be homosexual but this is not how God made them, he does not however love their sin. As mentioned above Jesus’ reaction to the adulteress woman. Our assumption is that the woman was committing adultery with a man, what if she’s was caught in adultery with a woman, the scripture does not say, in either case the adultery by definition would be outside a marriage covenant and both would be equally sinful.

As for Priests and Virgins they sacrifice their gift of sexuality and offer it to God. Also by the fact that they are not in a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman they are following Gods commandment to not commit adultery. Their marriage on this earth is with God and they give themselves totally to God as an example of how those in a covenant marriage are to act.

I suggest that you get a book by Christopher West called “The Good News About Sex & Marriage” it does an excellent job of explaining the WHY behind many of your questions.

As far as the meat question in which you asked later Mark 7:19 Jesus declares all food clean.

I pray that God helps you with your internal conflict on this subject and I applaud you in seeking out answers. Remember God loves you and your friends, but he does not love your sins nor the sins of your friends.

 

[Mijoy2]

Fix, Fix you hit something I hadn’t thought about. Our bodies were meant to be together, but it’s that we were clouded by sin that homosexuals came into being. I never thought of that. Originally, men were made for women and women for men…and the reason there are homosexuals is sin tainted our minds and bodies. That really, honestly, didn’t occur to me. I know it sounds silly, but sometimes the most obvious answers are right under your nose. God really didn’t mean for there to be homosexuals.

quote]

Avenara,

May I suggest (ideally) reading Pope John Paul II Theology of the Body, or possibly more practically listening to (ore reading) the works of Christopher West. You can search for Theology of the Body on the web and find access to these works.

They expound on God’s intention in a profound and meaningful way.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Avenara, I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity. The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving. Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sex.

Even from the point of view of design, I still find it difficult to accept the moral conclusions drawn. They seem to be much too utilitarian to me. One may as well adopt the Hegelian position that, because a table at my job is designed to maximize my efficiency/productivity, placing a beverage on it destroys or invalidates it by making it support my refreshment, which is only incidental to my productivity.

It seems that the Biblical and ecclesiastical strictures against homosexuality are predominantly cultural. To the extent that they have moral value, it is in a recognition of a central point: homosexuality as we recognize it was completely unknown to the ancient Israelites and to Paul–i.e., it was a behavior associated with “pagans”, idol worship, or slavery. A case can be made (a convincing case, one could argue), for the re-interpretation of the strictures against homosexuality as warnings against idolatry (idolizing pleasure or sex) or physical/emotional slavery in a sexual context. The ideal with which we’re presented, then, is one of mutuality and commitment which is open to grace (life).

That having been said, I wish you all the best in your exploration of this very contentious issue!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!

Avenara, I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity. The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving. Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sex.

Even from the point of view of design, I still find it difficult to accept the moral conclusions drawn. They seem to be much too utilitarian to me. One may as well adopt the Hegelian position that, because a table at my job is designed to maximize my efficiency/productivity, placing a beverage on it destroys or invalidates it by making it support my refreshment, which is only incidental to my productivity.

It seems that the Biblical and ecclesiastical strictures against homosexuality are predominantly cultural. To the extent that they have moral value, it is in a recognition of a central point: homosexuality as we recognize it was completely unknown to the ancient Israelites and to Paul–i.e., it was a behavior associated with “pagans”, idol worship, or slavery. A case can be made (a convincing case, one could argue), for the re-interpretation of the strictures against homosexuality as warnings against idolatry (idolizing pleasure or sex) or physical/emotional slavery in a sexual context. The ideal with which we’re presented, then, is one of mutuality and commitment which is open to grace (life).

That having been said, I wish you all the best in your exploration of this very contentious issue!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[setter]

Grace & Peace!

Avenara, I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, …

Even from the point of view of design, I still find it difficult to accept the moral conclusions drawn. They seem to be…

It seems that the Biblical and ecclesiastical strictures against homosexuality are predominantly cultural. To the extent that they have moral value, …

That having been said, I wish you all the best in your exploration of this very contentious issue!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

Contentious for some indeed.

A note to Avenara: You have now heard from one of our resident CA forum homosexual apologist. Like flies to honey, these homosexual apologist are attracted to threads to seek to clarify the Church’s compassionate teaching and outreach to folks who strugglewith SSA.

 

[fix]

Grace & Peace!

Avenara, I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. Or, to put it another way, that physical unity (in the sense of genitals matching up for procreation) in the sexual act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity. The criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggests that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving. Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sex.

Even from the point of view of design, I still find it difficult to accept the moral conclusions drawn. They seem to be much too utilitarian to me. One may as well adopt the Hegelian position that, because a table at my job is designed to maximize my efficiency/productivity, placing a beverage on it destroys or invalidates it by making it support my refreshment, which is only incidental to my productivity.

It seems that the Biblical and ecclesiastical strictures against homosexuality are predominantly cultural. To the extent that they have moral value, it is in a recognition of a central point: homosexuality as we recognize it was completely unknown to the ancient Israelites and to Paul–i.e., it was a behavior associated with “pagans”, idol worship, or slavery. A case can be made (a convincing case, one could argue), for the re-interpretation of the strictures against homosexuality as warnings against idolatry (idolizing pleasure or sex) or physical/emotional slavery in a sexual context. The ideal with which we’re presented, then, is one of mutuality and commitment which is open to grace (life).

That having been said, I wish you all the best in your exploration of this very contentious issue!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

It seems you have it backward. It is those who support things like contraception and homosexual acts who are the physicalists.

This author makes the point well:

…The truth is that the advocates of contraception are guilty of physicalism, for they reduce the human body and the human, personal power of giving life to a new person to mere material instruments meant to serve consciously experienced goods, which for them are the “higher” goods of human existence.34…

The Church and human intelligence both insist that the human body, bodily
life, and the procreative dimension of our sexuality are “personal” goods,
goods of the human person, not goods for the human person. Human
intelligence insists on this…

The personal goodness of the human body and, in particular, of human
fertility, is a theme that runs throughout the writings of Pope John Paul
II on human existence, sexuality, and marriage.36 He teaches us, and
teaches truly, that our fertility, far from being a mere biological
function, is an integral aspect of the "nuptial meaning’ of our bodies, the
living human bodies that are made in the image and likeness of God and are
in truth gifts from our loving Father.37…

ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/COABPA.TXT

 

[Rawb]

Avenara, someone already recommended John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. I haven’t read it yet, but I have read Theology of the Body for Beginners by Christopher West, which is sort of an introduction to Theology of the Body. I think this is exactly what you’re looking for. It not only will explain why homosexuality is a sin, but why contraception and masturbation are as well.

God created us in his image. Have you ever thought about what that really means? Man and woman he created us. God is not just one; He’s the Trinity. The Father so loved the Son and the Son so loved the Father that they gave all of themselves, completely and unrestrained, to that love. They poured themselves into that love. All of themselves. That love is The Holy Spirit. The love of The Father and The Son produced The Holy Spirit. Sex is an earthly sign of this, where the love of a man and a woman produce a child.

All of this is explained much, MUCH more thouroughly in the above two books (it goes into celebacy as well and how that fits). Read Theology of the Body (or Theology of the Body for Beginners), and I think your questions will be answered.

 

[sruyle]

Grace & Peace!

Avenara, I remain unconvinced that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate … Heterosexual rape appears, then, to have more moral value than consensual homosexual sex.

Deo Gratias!

Deo Volente may remain unconvinced and try to show this issue in the light of relativism. Deo used the proper word “APPEARS” when comparing heterosexual rape and consensual homosexual sex.

The argument does not suppose that. Consensual heterosexual sex outside of marriage is just as wrong and as evil as consensual homosexual sex. Rape I would say is even worse. All instances are sexual acts outside the marriage covenant.

Just because one can possibly create a life does not validate the act as a good. The sexual act must take place within marriage for it to be good.

Now just because one creates life outside of marriage does not mean that child should be destroyed. You can not kill the child for the sin of parent(s).

 

[Riley259]

Honestly, what NichJake said was one of the things I wondered about. Although not that the people wrote that, but that God himself ordained it because HE understood the whole germ thing. Just like it’s wrong to have sex with a woman on her period by His decree and probably for the same reason. Back then, people just couldn’t be nearly as clean as we can today and they didn’t have the health resources, but if that’s the case, wouldn’t it be fine to do today when we have condoms to make the practice safer?

This is why I find myself wondering so much. This is why I’m so conflicted. I’m trying to figure out what makes this so wrong. I’m trying to understand the WHY. Why does God dislike it so much to put it on par with murder? Why?

Thank you, Catholic90, for reminding me God doesn’t hate my friends because of their sin. It was hurting me to think he hated them.

A good book that explains this for you is entitled: Male and Female He made them by Mary Jo Anderson and Robin Burnhoft. It’s fairly short (110 pages or so), written in a question and answer format and is very effective at spelling out the truth of the Church’s teaching in this area. I’ll pray for you and your friends.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Avenara,

First, forgive me for not reading the whole thread, just in case I reiterate something that’s already been posted.

I assume you were also taught that sex outside of marriage is a sin – yes? If so, think of it this way: marriage is a sacramental bond between a man and a woman; gay relationships cannot be sacramental. Sex is the physical consumation of that union. Therefore, sex between gay people is sex outside of marriage.

Are actively gay people worse sinners than actively heterosexual people who are not married? No, in my estimation. They both are having sex outside the sacramental context for which sex was designed.

Furthermore, many heterosexual people seem “freed of a burden” when they convince themselves that there’s nothing wrong with having sex outside of marriage “as long as you love the other person”. Some don’t even make that distinction, and think sex is ok no matter what. In any case, these people have constructed a morality based on selfishness; not on the love of Christ.

I hope this helps!

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The argument does not suppose that. Consensual heterosexual sex outside of marriage is just as wrong and as evil as consensual homosexual sex. Rape I would say is even worse. All instances are sexual acts outside the marriage covenant.

The sinfulness of rape lies in its forced nature, just as does its criminality. Rape is a violent sin as much as it is a sexual one (or more so). A virgin who is raped, for instance, should rightfully consider herself as never having given herself to a man.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Contentious for some indeed.

A note to Avenara: You have now heard from one of our resident CA forum homosexual apologist. Like flies to honey, these homosexual apologist are attracted to threads to seek to clarify the Church’s compassionate teaching and outreach to folks who strugglewith SSA.

Setter, I wasn’t aware that I was a resident homosexual apologist. I’ve posted in more non-homosexual threads, and have hardly thought it worth taking the time to post on all of the homosexual-related threads. (There are so many of them!) We just seem to encounter each other here, and also happen to vehemently disagree with each other on this particular issue. There’s a part of me that would miss it if I posted in one of these threads and you didn’t respond.

Now, I’ll confess that I’m a Christian who happens to be gay and am not completely disinterested in the course of these discussions (which confession impugns my credibility, what little there is/was of it, to be sure), but my aim is not to cast aspersions on the compassionate teaching of the church, but as I do not completely share the Vatican’s understanding of human sexuality, I feel bound to question some of the assumptions on which her teaching is based. And, truth be told, when that teaching is articulated in these forums, it reads and/or feels less like an articulation than a quotation, complete with a certain jingoism which seems to belie an engagement with the teaching in favor of mere assent. So when the answer seems too pat, I feel obliged to say that I feel the answer is too pat. I don’t begrudge disagreement or being contradicted. But I do cringe at intellectual regurgitation.

Just as an aside, I did use the term “gay” above in contradistinction to SSA because I do not claim as my own the intellectual and emotional baggage which SSA suggests to me. Nor did I choose homosexual in this context given its neutral/clinical character. And though I did not mean “gay” as a political term (as it is often understood in these forums), I felt my linguistic options were limited as I did not wish to imply consent to the philosophy behind the term SSA, nor did I wish to imply that my sexuality is a thing I consider clinically.

Regardless, I remain,

Just another fly in the honeypot who lives,

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!