Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Bookcat]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10859862&highlight=date#post10859862

 

[davidv]

It’s not relativism???
I believe in objective truths. That doesn’t mean we have the truth on every single subject.

What truth don’t we know with respect to the topic of this thread? Does this unknown make any of the known truths untrue?

It was experience that allowed the Church to finally evaluate the situation with slavery.

I think this reflects a gross misunderstanding of Church teaching. But, slavery is a topic for a different thread.

 

[catholic1seeks]

What truth don’t we know with respect to the topic of this thread? Does this unknown make any of the known truths untrue?

I think this reflects a gross misunderstanding of Church teaching. But, slavery is a topic for a different thread.

I understand the history of slavery and the Church differently. In the early centuries, many churchmen referred to it as part of natural law, or the natural order of things.

Some Catholics* say the truth is known because these teachings are infallible.
What is for sure is that they are traditional teachings, largely assumed and then codified under a specific interpretation of natural moral law.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

So are you saying that, according to Catholic teaching and understanding, two gay people could love each other, even in romantic ways, as long as they don’t do so in a sexual manner???

Pretty much, also did I mention that historically same sex friendship was regarded above marriage?

I think you will find most people on here disagreeing even with your first clause. I am assuming you mean more than mere friendship as your other post describes.

More than friendship is today. It’d be morally acceptable for you to build a common life together with another man, it’d also be fine for you to cuddle and sleep in the same bed.

Quote:

Joie’s statement touches dangerous ground when she says: “it can also be good for you to express it intimately,”

However, your conclusion is correct.

I have repeatedly said that it is not morally licit to express it via sex.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It’s not relativism???
I believe in objective truths. That doesn’t mean we have the truth on every single subject.

It was experience that allowed the Church to finally evaluate the situation with slavery.

Slavery existed and flourished before Christ founded the Church.

The early Church and Christians spent a great deal of time and money enfranchising slaves.

“To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society. But to say that primitive Christianity had not even “an embryonic vision” of a society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the Fathers of the Church did not feel “the horror of slavery”, is to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness. In St. Gregory of Nyssa (In Ecclesiastem, hom. iv) the most energetic and absolute reprobation of slavery may be found; and again in numerous passages of St. John Chrysostom’s discourse we have the picture of a society without slaves - a society composed only of free workers, an ideal portrait of which he traces with the most eloquent insistence.”

newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

 

[Bookcat]

Pretty much.

No I would not say so.

Friendship…not romance.

 

[Bookcat]

What is needed is many good “friendships” (not “relationships” in the common parlance)

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Experience gets to truth, my friend.

It helps us know what is right and wrong.

“By their fruits you shall know them.” - Jesus

I see the bad fruits from this teaching on the lives of many homosexual Christians.

Drawing from his experience and in his own words, here is the view of a Catholic homosexual with respect to gay sex:

The sexual temptations have always been there for me, and I suppose will always be. I am not afraid to admit that until the day I die I will probably always be attracted to men. However, I don’t think this aspect of my cross has been the greatest struggle. The greatest struggle has been my interior life. Experiencing same sex attraction (SSA) and being Catholic is hard (well, being Catholic is hard). It is a unique/heavy cross to carry, and a very painful one. It comes with its share of anxiety, heartache, tears, and boogers. Us folks, who have SSA, we struggle with a lot. Among those things are body image, father wounds, bouts of depression, feeling less masculine, and a lot of us aren’t good at sports (which makes it harder for us to bond with other men). Growing up I always felt different and uncomfortable around other men, as if I was unworthy to even be called a man. However, I think it’s especially difficult to carry out this chaste lifestyle in the midst of today’s hyper sexual culture.

The culture today has become increasingly pro-gay. Just take a look at shows like Glee, Modern Family, or anything Lady Gaga… this stuff didn’t build up overnight. While this DOMA thing was taking place my Facebook newsfeed exploded with red equal sings. The younger generation has become largely accepting of the gay community. I’m glad that people are starting to become less homophobic and are speaking against gay bullying. However, this doesn’t mean that I’m for gay marriage or I think people should pursue same sex relationships.

It just doesn’t fit human sexuality or natural law. Just because I have an inclination to do something doesn’t mean that I should follow it. When we pursue sexuality outside of the way God designed for it to be we can find ourselves in messy situations. Hence the high promiscuity, infidelity, and STD rates associated with the gay community. But of course the media will never portray it this way, living a gay lifestyle is portrayed as glamorous and fulfilling. I am not saying that every gay person is living a promiscuous life and is carrying an STD on them. I have many friends who identify as gay who are hard workers and are doing awesome things with their lives. However, I will not deny that amongst the “gay scene” multiple partners and infidelity rates are pretty high. Homosexuality has to be identified more with behavior, than with identity. That’s how the gay movement has progressed so much they’ve turned it into its own culture. The minute we reduce ourselves to our sexual orientation, we lose sight of who we really are.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Pretty much, also did I mention that historically same sex friendship was regarded above marriage?

More than friendship is today. It’d be morally acceptable for you to build a common life together with another man, it’d also be fine for you to cuddle and sleep in the same bed.

I have repeatedly said that it is not morally licit to express it via sex.

Yes, you have, but you also use the term “intimacy”. To most people that means sexual relations. “To cuddle and sleep in the same bed” is a form of intimacy but you have to be careful here. Cuddling and sleeping together can be a near occasion of sin for ANY couple.

I am not being judgmental here. If someone tells me they sleep together and do not have sex. I believe them. Just as I believe someone who admits to using marijuana but claims not to inhale.

 

[Bookcat]

Romantic relationship? (and expressions of such?)

Couple?

Such would not describe how Christians person with SSA would want to act…(aside from the “wanting” presented by temptation)

Rather: Friendships.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Drawing from his experience and in his own words, here is the view of a Catholic homosexual with respect to gay sex:

He experiences the heartache many gay Christians feel, sure. Of course not all frame it in terms of fully accepting the Church’s teaching.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Slavery existed and flourished before Christ founded the Church.

The early Church and Christians spent a great deal of time and money enfranchising slaves.

“To reproach the Church of the first ages with not having condemned slavery in principle, and with having tolerated it in fact, is to blame it for not having let loose a frightful revolution, in which, perhaps, all civilization would have perished with Roman society. But to say that primitive Christianity had not even “an embryonic vision” of a society in which there should be no slavery, to say that the Fathers of the Church did not feel “the horror of slavery”, is to display either strange ignorance or singular unfairness. In St. Gregory of Nyssa (In Ecclesiastem, hom. iv) the most energetic and absolute reprobation of slavery may be found; and again in numerous passages of St. John Chrysostom’s discourse we have the picture of a society without slaves - a society composed only of free workers, an ideal portrait of which he traces with the most eloquent insistence.”

newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

The norm that most people are heterosexual and therefore formed heterosexual unions also existed before the Church.

Some things are just assumed.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I would say that current traditional church teaching causes much tragedy and misery for LGBTQ Catholics.

The teaching on homosexual behavior was no different before, going back a long long time, in the OT, the same as other eternal moral prohibitions against adultery and other sexual wrongs. It is not the same as a custom practice peculiar to a time, place or culture like mixing fabrics, circumcision, etc.

Your use of “current” is indicative how much you want the teaching to change. There were homosexual Catholic theologians who worked for years, even decades, on the inside to change the teaching on homosexuality, like Robert Nugent, Jeannine Gramick, John McNeill, until the Church has had to pronounce that their continued dissent and actions undermining an unchangeable teaching on homosexuality placed said dissenters outside the Church. They can not claim to be Catholics.

Your postings read like thise Matthew Vines posing as catholic1seeks. At any rate, he is wrong about Scripture and homosexuality.

Fidelity and commitment in a same sex relationship that includes sexual expression do not make a relationship moral, as it is lacking the second in the list of three fonts of morality below:

(1) intention,
(2) moral object,
(3) circumstances.

And the purpose of something when “misused” of its apparent natural design does not necessarily entail immorality. The mouth is designed for eating and breathing. Yet one can also use the mouth for kissing.

Their brains sure seem designed that way

Else they wouldn’t want to do it in the first place

The mouth can be used to ingest non-food items, as well. In fact, there are people with said compulsion; they are known to have a condition called pica. These individuals have a craving to eat dirt, chalk, etc., which they often do in secret. Something in their brain is dictating the action that becomes a pattern. The act of eating or taste of the target item gives pleasure to them. Else they would not do it in the first place.
,

 

[Thorolfr]

The teaching on homosexual behavior was no different before, going back a long long time, in the OT, the same as other eternal moral prohibitions against adultery and other sexual wrongs. It is not the same as a custom ; practice peculiar to a time, place or culture like mixing fabrics, circumcision, etc.
,

These “customs” that you mention (there are many more recorded in Leviticus) were statutes and ordinances given by God to Moses. As God says in Leviticus 18:5: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.” So how do we decide that some of God’s statutes and ordinances are just “customs” or practices “peculiar to a time, place or culture” whereas others are eternal?

 

[bjryman]

So are you saying that, according to Catholic teaching and understanding, two gay people could love each other, even in romantic ways, as long as they don’t do so in a sexual manner???

Well, there are two issues. The Church does not condone marriage of gays. It does say that all people should love one another. That direction would apply to two gay, unmarried folks, and two divorced, remairried heterosexual folks. The Church does not teach the Divorce is bad in itself either. It teaches that, yes, it is the sex act that makes the sin.

Yes, it seems to always come back to the pesky little act of sex

 

[catholic1seeks]

The teaching on homosexual behavior was no different before, going back a long long time, in the OT, the same as other eternal moral prohibitions against adultery and other sexual wrongs. It is not the same as a custom practice peculiar to a time, place or culture like mixing fabrics, circumcision, etc.

This a very nearsighted approach to say that the teaching was “no different” at the time of the Levitical Laws from today’s Catholic magisterium. One may claim that there exists a universal moral law, and therefore the moral evaluation of homosexual acts cannot ever change. After all, if homosexual activity is inherently wrong, then indeed it cannot be true one day and wrong another.That is one thing. But people at the time of Leviticus or Paul did not understood the morality of homosexuality as we do because they simply did not understand homosexuality in the same way. The modern church refers to homosexual activity in relation to natural moral law and inherently sinful acts. Scripture does not indicate homosexual behavior as being inherently sinful. There is no reason from the Bible to think that each and every gay act is “intrinsically evil.” There is no reason to think the Bible in any place is talking about committed homosexual relationships. We like to layer our modern concept of natural moral law on top of biblical passages, but there was no such developed concept then. It may be in error to think various authors are referring to acts as in and of themselves wrong.

Your use of “current” is indicative how much you want the teaching to change. There were homosexual Catholic theologians who worked for years, even decades, on the inside to change the teaching on homosexuality, like Robert Nugent, Jeannine Gramick, John McNeill, until the Church has had to pronounce that their continued dissent and actions undermining an unchangeable teaching on homosexuality placed said dissenters outside the Church. They can not claim to be Catholics.

It is a shame one cannot be Catholic because one disagrees with one point of teaching that is not even dogma. Also, teaching on sexuality has not been defined ex cathedra or ecumenical council so there is some degree of development possible you would admit and at least some sense this teaching is “current.”

Fidelity and commitment in a same sex relationship that includes sexual expression do not make a relationship moral, as it is lacking the second in the list of three fonts of morality below:

(1) intention,
(2) moral object,
(3) circumstances.

This is correct if one understands homosexual activity as inherently immoral and if one approaches morality through this natural moral law tradition that focuses primarily on phsyicalist/functional aspects of sex instead of looking at the whole persons and his/her needs for fulfillment and development.

The mouth can be used to ingest non-food items, as well. In fact, there are people with said compulsion; they are known to have a condition called pica. These individuals have a craving to eat dirt, chalk, etc., which they often do in secret. Something in their brain is dictating the action that becomes a pattern. The act of eating or taste of the target item gives pleasure to them. Else they would not do it in the first place.
,

This is a good illustration to make to show that something made for one thing can be abused. A mouth made to aid in cultivation nutrition and be abused to harm the body. But just because something is not used for its most apparent purpose does not equate to an immoral condition: The mouth can also be used for kissing, but it is not as if humans have evolved mouths for this purpose.

Of course, if one were to disagree that sex is only for procreation+union, then homosexual sexual activity would not be disusing the sexual faculty in any sense but would actually be promoting its actual purpose: self-giving, loving, union, etc…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

These “customs” that you mention (there are many more recorded in Leviticus) were statutes and ordinances given by God to Moses. As God says in Leviticus 18:5: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord.” So how do we decide that some of God’s statutes and ordinances are just “customs” or practices “peculiar to a time, place or culture” whereas others are eternal?

A variation of the oft asked and answered question in many threads in this forum.

If we hold to Leviticus’ statements as being a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, do we then also obey the rest of the old law?

CAF apologist Jim Blackburn also answered here.

Of course, ELCA adherents and defenders of homosexual relations would find the reasoning unacceptable, not really expecting concurrence when they argue in a Catholic site.
,
,

 

[catholic1seeks]

A variation of the oft asked and answered question in many threads in this forum.

If we hold to Leviticus’ statements as being a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, do we then also obey the rest of the old law?

CAF apologist Jim Blackburn also answered here.

Of course, ELCA adherents and defenders of homosexual relations would find the reasoning unacceptable, not really expecting concurrence when they argue in a Catholic site.
,
,

The issue is whether homosexual acts as immoral is part of the objective moral law and not just the Levitical or Old Law requirements. Saying this law still applies assumes it is part of the universal moral law.

 

[Rau]

I am of course referring to falling in love with someone of the same sex. Wanting to share your time with this person romantically. Wanting to bond with this person and share your life in a committed fashion.

It is not so much what you say that causes puzzlement, but what you don’t say. Is this relationship one that seeks fulfiment also in sexual acts?

 

[catholic1seeks]

It is not so much what you say that causes puzzlement, but what you don’t say. Is this relationship one that seeks fulfiment also in sexual acts?

Sexual expression is included in most romantic relationships at times.