Homosexuality Intrinsically Disordered?

[SMGS127]

I’m not, nor do I believe, anyone on this thread is condemning the persons who may be acting out homosexual behavior. It is true- there are circumstances that can mitigate this sin, but I do believe that a person with same-sex attraction should try their level-best to live in harmony with God’s Will, which is to say, with God’s Law. I realize for many it’s extremely difficult. But with God’s Grace, all things are possible!

Though I don’t know a lot about it. Groups like “courage” seem to be a great means for people with same-sex attraction to strive for holiness in all aspects of their lives.

couragerc.net/courage/about/

Courage advocates for conversion therapy. I would NEVER advocate for them to a gay or lesbian Catholic.

Instead, I would advise them to seek continuous priestly counseling while making sure to not allow Churchgoers to force them to abandon their LGBT friend group, unless they were in such a heavy risk of sin that they needed to (which is rarely the case).

 

[JamalChristophr]

Courage advocates for conversion therapy. I would NEVER advocate for them to a gay or lesbian Catholic.

Instead, I would advise them to seek continuous priestly counseling while making sure to not allow Churchgoers to force them to abandon their LGBT friend group, unless they were in such a heavy risk of sin that they needed to (which is rarely the case).

What you say may be true. I’d have to do more research on it, but I was under the impression that Courage promotes growth in virtue, and one of their main emphases is on living a life of chastity, just as any single heterosexual is called to do in the Church.

Conversion therapy, I suppose, might best be left to a different thread all together. It’s an important topic, but getting into here might not be the best course.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Courage advocates for conversion therapy. I would NEVER advocate for them to a gay or lesbian Catholic.

Instead, I would advise them to seek continuous priestly counseling while making sure to not allow Churchgoers to force them to abandon their LGBT friend group, unless they were in such a heavy risk of sin that they needed to (which is rarely the case).

Hopefully as they grown in the light of the Lord they can be a positive influence on their LGBT friends.

 

[sirach2v4]

The words of Jesus himself reflects the Old Testament teaching, though he was answering the Pharisees regarding divorce, he specified the reason that mankind was created as male and female; 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning,* Made them male and female? *And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh.

Yes, but to be precise, what Jesus quotes is not in the oral covenant recorded in Leviticus, which was a covenant with the Israelites. this is apples and oranges, Genesis “apples” (no pun intended) and Leviticus “oranges.”

And, again, no one responds to my question about the meaning of 1735.

And, when somebody quoted Lev 18 above, didn’t that specifically proscribe the ritual homosexual acts of the pagan religions?

This discussion runs roughshod over the text of scripture.

 

[SoulSolace]

Yes, but to be precise, what Jesus quotes is not in the oral covenant recorded in Leviticus, which was a covenant with the Israelites. this is apples and oranges, Genesis “apples” (no pun intended) and Leviticus “oranges.”

And, again, no one responds to my question about the meaning of 1735.

And, when somebody quoted Lev 18 above, didn’t that specifically proscribe the ritual homosexual acts of the pagan religions?

This discussion runs roughshod over the text of scripture.

Only if you want to believe otherwise.
Jesus gave a very clear definition of marriage. A man. A woman. An indissoluble Sacrament when a valid marriage takes place.

As for 1735, that was responded to in another post, and you didn’t address the person’s response.

God bless.

 

[SoulSolace]

In the literal aspect, individuals who are exclusively homosexual do NOT lie with a man AS WITH A WOMAN – because they are incapable of relations with a woman.

And the above is nothing more than word semantics on your part.

 

[Rau]

And, again, no one responds to my question about the meaning of 1735.

But I did !

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It is very important to distinguish the non sinful inclination from the sinful acts, and thus to use language that cannot give the wrong impression.

Engaging in homosexual acts is not at all a prerequisite to be homosexual.

The catechism, when speaking of disorders, is careful to focus on “acts” and the “inclination”, for just this reason.

I understand this, Rau, and I know where you are coming from. But it seems like you and the Conference of Catholic Bishops (via latest changes in the Catechism) are redefining “homosexuality” as promoted by gay activists for the purpose of acceptance.

Without starting an argument or with any intention of hijacking this thread…I maintain that this harmless, non sinful, INCLINATION that afflicts some poor souls is really nothing more than the sin of LUST.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Homosexual refers to sexual actions as much as disinterested refers to apathy.

 

[SoulSolace]

Without starting an argument or with any intention of hijacking this thread…I maintain that this harmless, non sinful, INCLINATION that afflicts some poor souls is really nothing more than the sin of LUST.

Can’t say that I disagree with you there.
And as with any disordered lust, it must be acknowledged and dealt with.

God bless you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I understand this, Rau, and I know where you are coming from. But it seems like you and the Conference of Catholic Bishops (via latest changes in the Catechism) are redefining “homosexuality” as promoted by gay activists for the purpose of acceptance.

Without starting an argument or with any intention of hijacking this thread…I maintain that this harmless, non sinful, INCLINATION that afflicts some poor souls is really nothing more than the sin of LUST.

Surely you’re right, and the Vatican (that’s who wrote the Catechism, by the way) has been co-opted by gay rights activists. Next thing they’ll be declaring Judy Garland a saint and electing Ru Paul pope. You can never trust those crazy prelates.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Can’t say that I disagree with you there.
And as with any disordered lust, it must be acknowledged and dealt with.

God bless you.

Surely lust includes with it a corresponding temptation, no? It is possible to be tempted without lusting. Correct?

 

[SoulSolace]

Surely lust includes with it a corresponding temptation, no? It is possible to be tempted without lusting. Correct?

How so? I can’t imagine being attracted to a person in a sinful manner without lust coming into play…

Edit; Or are you saying the temptation to feel lust? So the temptation comes in before the lust, and the lust is actually a result of ceding to temptation?

 

[Rau]

I understand this, Rau, and I know where you are coming from. But it seems like you and the Conference of Catholic Bishops (via latest changes in the Catechism) are redefining “homosexuality” as promoted by gay activists for the purpose of acceptance.

Without starting an argument or with any intention of hijacking this thread…I maintain that this harmless, non sinful, INCLINATION that afflicts some poor souls is really nothing more than the sin of LUST.

The inclination exists prior to any lust, or act, and does not necessarily lead to either of them. Just the same as for heterosexuals.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How so? I can’t imagine being attracted to a person in a sinful manner without lust coming into play…

The attraction isn’t “in a sinful manner” until one succumbs to lust. When I recognize another man as beautiful and desirable, and I experience curiosity, it can stop there – and there is no sin at that point.

Edit; Or are you saying the temptation to feel lust? So the temptation comes in before the lust, and the lust is actually a result of ceding to temptation?

Yes, that’s it. But some people are tempted, in such cases, with respect to people of the same sex – hence the word “gay”. It has nothing to do with lust, only with attraction – an attraction which is not merely a temptation, but that is rarely present (at least to me) without some level of temptation.

 

[Rau]

How so? I can’t imagine being attracted to a person in a sinful manner without lust coming into play…

A man, single or married, may be attracted to a woman. Not sinful. A man, single or married, may be attracted to a man. Not sinful. Either may lust. Sinful. Either may seek out the object of their attraction for wrongful purposes. Sinful. Either may engage in sex acts with the object of their attraction. Sinful.

 

[SoulSolace]

The attraction isn’t “in a sinful manner” until one succumbs to lust. When I recognize another man as beautiful and desirable, and I experience curiosity, it can stop there – and there is no sin at that point.

Yes, that’s it. But some people are tempted, in such cases, with respect to people of the same sex – hence the word “gay”. It has nothing to do with lust, only with attraction – an attraction which is not merely a temptation, but that is rarely present (at least to me) without some level of temptation.

If I recognize someone as attractive, I immediately avert my gaze. I don’t entertain the notion even for a second.
The more I do so, the easier it gets. (But to let my guard down on such issues would be dangerous spiritually.), and the more I do so, the easier it is to look at a person and not see them in such a light.
Thanks be to God, for I haven’t the strength of my own accord to ‘behave’.

God bless.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A man, single or married, may be attracted to a woman. Not sinful. A man, single or married, may be attracted to a man. Not sinful. Either may lust. Sinful. Either may seek out the object of their attraction for wrongful purposes. Sinful. Either may engage in sex acts with the object of their attraction. Sinful.

:clapping:

 

[SoulSolace]

A man, single or married, may be attracted to a woman. Not sinful. A man, single or married, may be attracted to a man. Not sinful. Either may lust. Sinful. Either may seek out the object of their attraction for wrongful purposes. Sinful. Either may engage in sex acts with the object of their attraction. Sinful.

MY HEAD HURTS!! LOL…

So the attraction … well… attraction to me is lust… I think ???

Ugh.

What you said makes sense though.

God bless.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If I recognize someone as attractive, I immediately avert my gaze. I don’t entertain the notion even for a second.

Do you assume that everyone else is the same way you are? Surely it is possible to be attracted to someone, and look at them without “entertaining any notion”.