Homosexuality And Original Sin

[Joie_de_Vivre]

A core difference is a temptation is something that is instilled at a point by an action, a person might be tempted by chocolate after knowing what it tastes like. It’s very unlikely a child would have the same craving for the stuff if he had never tasted it.

An inclination however is something that can occur with no prompt, same sex attraction is an example of this because a boy can be born in the middle of amish country, not even know what homosexuality is and still develop physical desires for members of his own sex.

There isn’t some van going around handing out “my first sex toys” to teenagers to give them a taste of sodomy. That’s the difference and why temptation can be easily identified against inclination

Did Jesus have a temptation or an inclination towards things that Satan tried to get him to do?

 

[Rau]

…Since SSA is not a natural inclination of human beings, could this inclination be more of a mental disorder?

The obvious contradiction of it with the bodies of the persons involved makes it evident something is amiss.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Most gay people I know were sexually and romantically attracted to members of their own sex long before they actually had a same-sex experience, knew another gay person, or perhaps before they even knew hardly anything about sexuality. Some gay people even report feeling different than their peers as young children.

This is my experience of the accounts of homosexuals of both genders as well. When they feel their first attractions can vary; there’s one woman I work with who claims she’s “always known she was a lesbian” to a nineteen year old boy in my congregation who claims he only started feeling attraction towards anyone, not just the same sex, in the past year.

Good answer!

Thank you.

Happy to help

Since SSA is not a natural inclination of human beings, could this inclination be more of a mental disorder?

I’m not a psychologist so I cannot speak with any expertise. I am assured by my collegues who work within that field and by the research papers I have read (and I’ve had to) on this subject that SSA does not match the “checklist” of what constitutes a mental disorder.

Usually a mental disorder can be traced to a genetic cause or trauma, and SSA doesn’t follow this trend. Certainly there’s all this talk of “the gay gene” but it’s possible for a straight man to have nine sons but them all to be gay as it is for a gay man to have several children and all of them be straight.

On first impressions it appears totally random, a lucky dip what you like. However I understand the most recent research ascribes credibility to a modified version of the Kinsey Scale; the idea that all humans are somewhere in-between “heterosexual” and “homosexual” and you’re dropped somewhere between 1 and 10 at birth but honestly I couldn’t say anything as to if it was believable or not as I am no scientist. I have it from the experts it is but it’s not really something I can test myself.

Did Jesus have a temptation or an inclination towards things that Satan tried to get him to do?

Technically Jesus couldn’t have either since he was sinless thus cannot be inclined towards evil, nor could he have been tempted since he couldn’t experience a disordered human emotion.

If we are talking about lesser mortals its hard to say, if you believe in original sin then it may be an inclination, if not then it must be a temptation.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

The obvious contradiction of it with the bodies of the persons involved makes it evident something is amiss.

Leg hair wasn’t “designed” to be shaved but plenty of women do it, this is also an obvious contradiction of purpose no? Same with nails, nostril hair, beards and the like; we’re perverting their purpose for our bodies.

 

[Rau]

…Technically Jesus couldn’t have either since he was sinless thus cannot be inclined towards evil, nor could he have been tempted since he couldn’t experience a disordered human emotion.

Is this a Lutheran belief? Certainly not Catholic.

 

[Thorolfr]

Leg hair wasn’t “designed” to be shaved but plenty of women do it, this is also an obvious contradiction of purpose no? Same with nails, nostril hair, beards and the like; we’re perverting their purpose for our bodies.

Some men were also circumcised as children which would seem to be unnatural since the foreskin does serve a purpose. We also might lick a stamp with our saliva which has amylase in it, an enzyme that begins the process of digestion. So isn’t it unnatural for us to use our amylase on a stamp which we have no intention of eating?

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Is this a Lutheran belief? Certainly not Catholic.

Not an especially widely held one no but not entirely unknown nor so disagreeable and radical that it would get oneself thrown out. In practice I doubt it is something most pause to consider, rather on the same level of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I don’t wish to pull this off topic but really…If temptation and inclination can be part of a near occasion of sin (a very Catholic belief, certainly not Lutheran) which is itself a sin how could a sinless being possibly experience either of them? Might make for a separate but no less interesting thread.

 

[Rau]

Leg hair wasn’t “designed” to be shaved but plenty of women do it, this is also an obvious contradiction of purpose no? Same with nails, nostril hair, beards and the like; we’re perverting their purpose for our bodies.

Arguably. But it’s an arbitrary choice, with a rationale, not an inclination. Kind of like brushing the hair.

 

[Cake_or_Death]

Some men were also circumcised as children which would seem to be unnatural since the foreskin does serve a purpose. We also might lick a stamp with our saliva which has amylase in it, an enzyme that begins the process of digestion. So isn’t it unnatural for us to use our amylase on a stamp which we have no intention of eating?

The only reason homosexuality is being singled out as “special” in regards to this “perversion of purpose” is because it is sexual in nature. It would appear as if purpose or disorder really is irrelevant when really the issue is unapproved unmandated use of orifices.

No problems with disagreeing with that, I just wish we could jump this talk of purpose which in every other context is nonsensical and get straight to the issue.

 

[Rau]

…We also might lick a stamp with our saliva which has amylase in it, an enzyme that begins the process of digestion. So isn’t it unnatural for us to use our amylase on a stamp which we have no intention of eating?

Needing a source of water, I agree one’s tongue is not the best option (sanitary considerations…) but the act is not a contradiction. The nature of every chemical in our saliva is such that it routinely finds itself discarded on straws, on tissues, on lips and excreted. We cut our nails when it suits us. Is this too indicative of an unexplained behaviour, contrary to design, or is it reasonable in light of the nature of the item in question?

 

[Rau]

…No problems with disagreeing with that, I just wish we could jump this talk of purpose which in every other context is nonsensical and get straight to the issue.

What issue is that?

The gross contradictions evident in same sex sex acts are not so much the reasons they are wrong, they are stark sign posts, visible to everyone, telling us “something is wrong here”. Telling us “we are not made for this”.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Happy to help

I’m not a psychologist so I cannot speak with any expertise. I am assured by my collegues who work within that field and by the research papers I have read (and I’ve had to) on this subject that SSA does not match the “checklist” of what constitutes a mental disorder.

Usually a mental disorder can be traced to a genetic cause or trauma, and SSA doesn’t follow this trend. Certainly there’s all this talk of “the gay gene” but it’s possible for a straight man to have nine sons but them all to be gay as it is for a gay man to have several children and all of them be straight.

On first impressions it appears totally random, a lucky dip what you like. However I understand the most recent research ascribes credibility to a modified version of the Kinsey Scale; the idea that all humans are somewhere in-between “heterosexual” and “homosexual” and you’re dropped somewhere between 1 and 10 at birth but honestly I couldn’t say anything as to if it was believable or not as I am no scientist. I have it from the experts it is but it’s not really something I can test myself.

So, “the jury is still out”.

Technically Jesus couldn’t have either since he was sinless thus cannot be inclined towards evil, nor could he have been tempted since he couldn’t experience a disordered human emotion.

If Jesus was both divine and fully human…he would have to experience ALL forms of human emotions.

 

[HelenRose]

I have often wondered what studies have been made to prove that same sex attraction is genetic.

My understanding is that at the present time no one knows what causes same sex attraction. One thought is an imbalance of hormones in a mother’s womb.

If a cause is found, what are the ramifications for those who do have same sex attraction.

If a gene is discovered, it is almost certain that there will be tests made on the unborn child and that there will be women who will opt for abortion.

If there is an imbalance of hormones in a mother’s womb, there may be a way to reverse the effects.

All in all though, the Church’s teaching are fair. Heterosexuals who engage is birth control methods are no less guilty of sin than homosexual activity.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I have often wondered what studies have been made to prove that same sex attraction is genetic.

My understanding is that at the present time no one knows what causes same sex attraction. One thought is an imbalance of hormones in a mother’s womb.

If a cause is found, what are the ramifications for those who do have same sex attraction.

If a gene is discovered, it is almost certain that there will be tests made on the unborn child and that there will be women who will opt for abortion.

If there is an imbalance of hormones in a mother’s womb, there may be a way to reverse the effects.

All in all though, the Church’s teaching are fair. Heterosexuals who engage is birth control methods are no less guilty of sin than homosexual activity.

Yes, sorry to say,… If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, I am sure there would be abortions. Also, that day would begin the “race for the cure.” And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race.

On the plus side we would have a cure for a serious disorder.

 

[bjryman]

Yes, sorry to say,… If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, I am sure there would be abortions. Also, that day would begin the “race for the cure.” And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race.

On the plus side we would have a cure for a serious disorder.

Not necessarily…You start with the conclusion that the Gay lifestyle is a serious disorder. If, on the other hand, one considers it to be just another manifestation of the creation by God of various and sundry men and women, then is it a serious disorder?

Similar to the Church’s labeling so often "Extra"ordinary (fill in the blank). The Church simply is stating that there are other alternatives that may not be in the mainstream, but still engaged in the overall scheme of things. One might postualate about Extraordinary Unions, as in Gay Unions as different but part of creation. Our entire bias today is based on Church fathers and others knowledge of Gay physical and mental condition of the past.

When the condition moves from learned to sickness, to Extraordinary but nominal, then what?

 

[Rau]

Not necessarily…You start with the conclusion that the Gay lifestyle is a serious disorder. If, on the other hand, one considers it to be just another manifestation of the creation by God of various and sundry men and women, then is it a serious disorder?

Similar to the Church’s labeling so often "Extra"ordinary (fill in the blank). The Church simply is stating that there are other alternatives that may not be in the mainstream, but still engaged in the overall scheme of things. One might postualate about Extraordinary Unions, as in Gay Unions as different but part of creation. Our entire bias today is based on Church fathers and others knowledge of Gay physical and mental condition of the past.

When the condition moves from learned to sickness, to Extraordinary but nominal, then what?

The word lifestyle is vague. You then describe it as a “serious disorder” which further compounds meaninglessness.

Keep it simple. The Church teaches that sexual acts between 2 persons of the same sex are “intrinsically disordered” - which means they are always and everywhere wrong to choose. It further teaches they can never be approved. It also teaches that persons may have reduced culpability for sin, but such does not alter what is moral and what can be endorsed.

If you wish to postulate and speculate on what might one day be, you need to do it within that framework.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Not necessarily…You start with the conclusion that the Gay lifestyle is a serious disorder. If, on the other hand, one considers it to be just another manifestation of the creation by God of various and sundry men and women, then is it a serious disorder?

One is free to consider anything. You could consider homosexuality to be the result of human contact with aliens…as in Ezekiel 10.8

Similar to the Church’s labeling so often "Extra"ordinary (fill in the blank). The Church simply is stating that there are other alternatives that may not be in the mainstream, but still engaged in the overall scheme of things. One might postualate about Extraordinary Unions, as in Gay Unions as different but part of creation. Our entire bias today is based on Church fathers and others knowledge of Gay physical and mental condition of the past.

Here again, one may “postulate” about anything. Proof is what is necessary. Or, in the case of religion, an Infallible Declaration…ex cathedra.

However…

I don’t need an organized religion or a magisterium to tell me that homosexuality is disordered. It should be pretty obvious to all that homosexuality is a deviant form of behavior. Deviant, in that it deviates from the natural form of sexual activity.

When the condition moves from learned to sickness, to Extraordinary but nominal, then what?

We will have dogs mating with cats.

 

[bjryman]

The word lifestyle is vague. You then describe it as a “serious disorder” which further compounds meaninglessness.

Keep it simple. The Church teaches that sexual acts between 2 persons of the same sex are “intrinsically disordered” - which means they are always and everywhere wrong to choose. It further teaches they can never be approved. It also teaches that persons may have reduced culpability for sin, but such does not alter what is moral and what can be endorsed.

If you wish to postulate and speculate on what might one day be, you need to do it within that framework.

I accept your criteria. Now, regarding how deeply we Catholics engage in this, I am reminded that the Church also teaches that sex between divorced and remarried couples is “wrong” as well. Same for artificial birth control. It makes me ponder about Gays, The Divorced/Remarried and Family Size Managers and the comparative gravity of their “sins”. Since Vatican II specifically calls each of us to develop an informed conscience for which we are ready to stand up for at the Judgement day…where does that leave the conversation? More specifically, where does that leave the “intrinsically disordered” definition.

Specifically, is it all a numbers game with 95% of Catholics practicing artifical birth control, and well over 50% being divorced and remarried. Meanwhile, fewer than 10% of population is Gay. Certainly makes me wonder about the validty of numbers.

I continue to worry that the Catholic Church tries to have all the answers to all the potential questions, as a result of the Middle Age Church’s development into a completely top down, having all the answers organization.

 

[kozlosap]

I accept your criteria. Now, regarding how deeply we Catholics engage in this, I am reminded that the Church also teaches that sex between divorced and remarried couples is “wrong” as well. Same for artificial birth control. It makes me ponder about Gays, The Divorced/Remarried and Family Size Managers and the comparative gravity of their “sins”. Since Vatican II specifically calls each of us to develop an informed conscience for which we are ready to stand up for at the Judgement day…where does that leave the conversation? More specifically, where does that leave the “intrinsically disordered” definition.

Specifically, is it all a numbers game with 95% of Catholics practicing artifical birth control, and well over 50% being divorced and remarried. Meanwhile, fewer than 10% of population is Gay. Certainly makes me wonder about the validty of numbers.

I continue to worry that the Catholic Church tries to have all the answers to all the potential questions, as a result of the Middle Age Church’s development into a completely top down, having all the answers organization.

BRAVO! There are few others on CAF that have tried to get your points across at one time or another, but you have done an awesome job of doing so! If we are told that it is important to have a well formed conscience, but then are belittled for not believing 100% that the use of ABC is a mortal sin or that gay individuals are intrinsically disordered, what is the use in having our own well formed conscience?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I continue to worry that the Catholic Church tries to have all the answers to all the potential questions, as a result of the Middle Age Church’s development into a completely top down, having all the answers organization.

Worry not…

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

This is expressed in the words of the bishop, St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Church is called Catholic or universal because . . . it teaches fully and unfailingly all the doctrines which ought to be brought to men’s knowledge, whether concerned with visible or invisible things, with the realities of heaven or the things of earth."

In other words, the conclusion that same-sex relationships are wrong and should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching.

Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial. If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” But, saying that truth is the reason that same-sex relationships are wrong and should not be afforded legal status is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism… the gravest problem of our time.”

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.