Homosexuality is a Sin

[Jerome42]

I think this whole discussion is getting a bit out of hand with regards to pre-judging individuals who have homosexual tendencies, predispositions, or as I like to refer to it as being heteresexually impaired. The sin is not in the condition since we all believe that with the help of God we can still lead a chaste life. It is only when we start thinking in terms of life styles and the impact on all of the good people that this reaches crisis proportions. I certainly don’t look forward to the day when I’ll be asking my grandaughter “Well Susie, when you grow up are you going to marry a man or a woman?”

At this point in time I think prayer may be the only answer since no one seems to have the courage to confront those in the media, politicians, rights groups and others responsible for this deplorable situation.

 

[misterX]

Contarini:

.

So actually you are the one who should join a Protestant church. You are flatly contradicting the Council of Trent by saying that involuntary sexual attraction is sinful in a baptized Christian.

Edwin

Did not jesus say that to even lust after your neighbours wife, in your mind is still a sin.
so its clear that even thinking a homosexual thought is a sin.

 

[fix]

misterX:

Did not jesus say that to even lust after your neighbours wife, in your mind is still a sin.
so its clear that even thinking a homosexual thought is a sin.

Lust is a sin, temptation and inclination are not sins.

 

[Tom]

Apostle X:

I have read the news articles regarding the Vatican’s new mandate to prohibit homosexuals from entering the seminary and becoming priests. Actually, I completely agree with this move. I’m sick of people saying “homosexuality as an orientation isn’t a sin, but committing a homosexual act is.” What don’t they understand?

You are assuming the reason a homosexual would be excluded is that homosexuality is a sin? Isn’t everyone a sinner? Is heterosexuality an equal sin? Acting upon either sexual tendency outside of marriage is an equal sin, please see the wording in the CCC, they use the exact same language to describe heterosexual activity outside of marriage as homosexual activity. We are ALL called to chastity, every single person in regards to their sexuality. I agree with the Vaticans’ decision, not because homosexuality is a sin, but because experience has shown ALL humans are weak and fall, and the possibility that a priest could lead another into homosexual behavior is not worth the risk. Sexuality is one of the most beautiful gifts of God and at the same time one of the hardest challenges.
Apostle X:

God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Humans weren’t meant to be gay, we were made to be attracted to the opposite sex in order to be able to reproduce and multiply and all that stuff, not to commit horrible immoral actions. Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Because the inhabitants of the cities were constantly committing homosexual acts.

would you consider sexual intercourse outside of marriage as a “horrible immoral actions”? Jesus does, He even goes further to say we sin if we think about it, we have sinned in our heart.
Apostle X:

It is not human nature to be gay. People who say that they were born gay are outright lying. No one is born gay; we are all born straight. Homosexuality is unnatural, simply put.

I have known many homosexual people and I disagree with you on several counts. One, yes “some” people are born disordered, homosexual, it doesn’t make them bad evil people, they are called to chastity as you and I are. The first homosexual I met was a young woman, you wouldn’t have known she was a woman except for her clothing, actually she looked more like a male in womens clothing, she had facial hair, large hands for a small framed person, her hormones were more male than female. She lived a chaste Catholic life. She was an example to ALL. She turned her condition into a virtue. I also have a close friend now who is male in his 50’s, he has led a chaste Catholic life, he understands his sexuality in relationship with Gods’ plan and lives by Gods’ plan. Your sexuality be it homo or hetero is not the sin. In each case it is a challenge to live in chastity. If you have strong sexual lust yet respond to it by turning it into a virtue you are not a sinner but an example regardless of your sexual “orientation”. In either case let us pray for one another, not condemn one another. Each person caries his own cross, those who have a heavier burden and turn to our Lord are the stronger ones for it.
Apostle X:

Why won’t these people get it? Homosexuality is a sin, they know it, yet they continue to practice it.

The “practice” of ANY sexuality outside of marriage is the sin, not the sexuality in and of itself.

 

[Apostle_X]

Pete2:

Regarding your statements… I agree-- enjoying the temptations, welcoming them into your mind… that is lust. Lust is an offense against chastity, as the Church defined in the CCC.

But what if a priest is dedicated to chastity, as he is called to do? A man who suffers from temptations of same sex attraction, but who does not welcome these lustful thoughts… in fact, does everything to avoid them, and any action associated with those tempatations… is blessed.

We agree that there is no sin in being tempted. So how can the Church justify turning away a chaste man, who has suffered from temptations of same sex attraction, from serving God if so called?

Pete

Pete, you basically said the same thing I said: “A man who suffers from temptations of same sex attraction, but who does not welcome these lustful thoughts…in fact, does everything to avoid them…” ← That is not homosexuality. See, the devil wants people to act on these temptations and to welcome them in, to harbor them, and to “become one” with the temptations. However, there is nothing wrong with feeling them and trying your hardest to get rid of them and fight them.

However, what if a priest welcomes the homosexual temptations in and doesn’t act upon them because he has taken a vow of celibacy? Is he not sinning? Is he half-sinning? No, he is sinning. The priest enjoys the homosexual desires and temptations and turns them into lust, but, since he doesn’t want to break his vow, doesn’t act upon those desires.

Get what I’m trying to say now?

 

[KingdomHallsEnd]

Everyone who has replied has agreed generally that homosexuality is a sin.

People have also said that “being homosexual is not a sin, but acting on the impulses is.”

How is homosexuality defined then?

I feel that there is no such thing as being homosexual. To be is your essence. That would mean that homosexuality is a permanent feature like nationaly or gender.

It is a sin because it is practiced periodically. Like lying. People lie at times, but that does not mean that lying is who they are, their essence.

Therefore, homosexuals lie to themselves, their minions, and everyone else when they say that they are homosexual.

To be homosexual means that you lack self-control. They sin deliberately. It is not because “it’s just who they are.”

Do you see what I mean?

 

[Tom]

And then, there’s the absolute worst act of homosexuality, self sexual gratification!!! Not only do these degenerates have sexual activity with the same sex, they have sexual activity with themselves, the ultimate act of homosexuality!!! And don’t try the sorry excuse that your thinking of someone of the opposite sex, we know you’re just a closet homosexual, you can’t fool us! Where is a stone when you really need it??? LOL

 

[rmaff]

I heard on EWTN today (I believe it was Karl Keating) tell a caller that in some dioceses, more than 25-30% or Catholic priests are homosexual.

Keating’s comment greatly confuses me. I recently came to the Church from an evangelical Protestant background. If any of the pastors in any church I attended over the last 30 years were known homosexuals, they would have been stripped of their ordination by the denominational governing authority. Period. End of sentence.

What am I missing here? If Catholic priests are known to be homosexual, in direct contradiction to Scripture and Church teaching . . . why are they permitted to serve the Host and hear confession?

 

[Contarini]

misterX:

Did not jesus say that to even lust after your neighbours wife, in your mind is still a sin.
so its clear that even thinking a homosexual thought is a sin.

But how do you know that just because someone has same-sex orientation they are “thinking homosexual thoughts”? How would you know this?

How do you know that a celibate heterosexual is not thinking sexual thoughts?

Edwin

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Did not jesus say that to even lust after your neighbours wife, in your mind is still a sin.
so its clear that even thinking a homosexual thought is a sin.

There is an assumption that every thought of a person with a homosexual orientation is sexual. Rest assured, these people go to work, go to school, pay their bills, mow there lawns, load and empty the dishwasher, take the trash out, read the newpaper, etc., some without a single sexual thought. Just being homosexual doesn’t make any thought a homosexual one.

However, what if a priest welcomes the homosexual temptations in and doesn’t act upon them because he has taken a vow of celibacy? Is he not sinning? Is he half-sinning? No, he is sinning. The priest enjoys the homosexual desires and temptations and turns them into lust, but, since he doesn’t want to break his vow, doesn’t act upon those desires.

Yes, this is true as is this:

However, what if a husband welcomes the heterosexual temptations in and doesn’t act upon them because he has taken a vow of fidelity? Is he not sinning? Is he half-sinning? No, he is sinning. The man enjoys the heterosexual desires and temptations and turns them into lust, but, since he doesn’t want to break his vows, doesn’t act upon those desires.

Same difference.

Why is there less outrage about marital infidelity? Or any kind of sexual sin. Because most of us not having homosexual desires are unlikely to commit those sins. We are likely to commit some sexual sin (some more, some less than others) because we are sexual beings with a fallen nature. But we can safely point a finger at those with SSA because we will never commit those sins.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

misterX:

what do you mean that some homosexuals do not commit immoral actions? The very fact that they are homosexual means they are commiting a immoral act.

What as the V.C 2 done to you people? if you think hommosexuality isn’t imoral go join a protestant church.

*If *what you mean by the word “homosexuality” is the state of having that orientation - even if one does not “act up” - then you’re giving a counsel of despair, because you’re implying that they are in a state of sin every second of their lives.​

Or do you mean something quite different ? ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Apostle X:

Get me straight, if someone has homosexual thoughts or desires, he should try to fight them; I don’t know how hard they are to conquer, but it can’t be that hard. If someone doesn’t try to overcome those desires, it’s a sin. Also, if he tries to hide them or put them aside, it’s a sin.

That, I find surprising - one of the most frequent complaints about them, is that they do not hide their homosexuality.​

So - to hide; or not to hide ? ##

Homosexuals are living lives of sin, even if they don’t act upon their unnatural desires.

 

[Jerome42]

rmaff:

What am I missing here? If Catholic priests are known to be homosexual, in direct contradiction to Scripture and Church teaching . . . why are they permitted to serve the Host and hear confession?

This is the dilemna the Church faces.

It is said “once a priest always a priest”, therefore if he has been ordained by a duly consecrated Bishop who can trace his lineage to the Early Church the powers of the priest cannot be removed. Even priests that may not lead proper lives still have the power to act ‘In Persona Christi’ and consecrate the Host as well as absolve sins in confession.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

fix:

That much I agree with.

Let us be fair and accurate:

So why are those verses of Leviticus quoted only against one “abomination”, when other things in Leviticus which are described as “abominations” are part and parcel of everyday life ? To be consistent, we should reject all the things listed as abominations.​

Leviticus does not distinguish between moral and cultic uncleanness; it was not alone in this - Christians, do distinguish. The book is being read with a Christian understanding of sin, although the reasons for calling this or that an abomination, belong to pre-Christian categories of thinking. There is a mismatch between the context of the thing condemned, and the way the condemnation is understood by Christians. Which makes the use of those verses incoherent.

The point is not so much the moral status of same-sex activity (important as that is - especially since different purposes are served by it in different settings), but the use of texts from the Bible to condemn it. They can’t be *assumed *to be referring to things familiar to Christian readers. Misapplication of the Bible affects how we treat others.

As for Genesis 19 - why not demonstrate what it means, by looking at the text ? FWIW, I don’t think it can be detached from 18; ISTM they are twin episodes. It also connects with other parts of Genesis, and with Judges 19. If it is to do with homosexuality (as commonly thought of) at all, that is only one aspect of the chapter’s meaning. ##

 

[fix]

## So why are those verses of Leviticus quoted only against one “abomination”, when other things in Leviticus which are described as “abominations” are part and parcel of everyday life ? To be consistent, we should reject all the things listed as abominations.

Leviticus does not distinguish between moral and cultic uncleanness; it was not alone in this - Christians, do distinguish. The book is being read with a Christian understanding of sin, although the reasons for calling this or that an abomination, belong to pre-Christian categories of thinking. There is a mismatch between the context of the thing condemned, and the way the condemnation is understood by Christians. Which makes the use of those verses incoherent.

The point is not so much the moral status of same-sex activity (important as that is - especially since different purposes are served by it in different settings), but the use of texts from the Bible to condemn it. They can’t be *assumed *to be referring to things familiar to Christian readers. Misapplication of the Bible affects how we treat others.

As for Genesis 19 - why not demonstrate what it means, by looking at the text ? FWIW, I don’t think it can be detached from 18; ISTM they are twin episodes. It also connects with other parts of Genesis, and with Judges 19. If it is to do with homosexuality (as commonly thought of) at all, that is only one aspect of the chapter’s meaning. ##

I do not doubt the verses in question may have additional meaning, but we cannot say that the verses are specfically ignoring homosexual conduct as is tried often these days by apologists for deviant behavior.

 

[Golf_Nut]

rmaff:

I heard on EWTN today (I believe it was Karl Keating) tell a caller that in some dioceses, more than 25-30% or Catholic priests are homosexual.

Keating’s comment greatly confuses me. I recently came to the Church from an evangelical Protestant background. If any of the pastors in any church I attended over the last 30 years were known homosexuals, they would have been stripped of their ordination by the denominational governing authority. Period. End of sentence.

What am I missing here? If Catholic priests are known to be homosexual, in direct contradiction to Scripture and Church teaching . . . why are they permitted to serve the Host and hear confession?

For me this is the great irony.

I am disgusted by how the Church also concealed and transferred priests who abused altar boys. If the Church was so convinced such conduct was wrong, then why didn’t it call a spade a spade and address the situation? No instead many priests simply got transferred to another parish where they continued such conduct with impunity until the law stepped in.

Ye who has not sinned can cast the first stone" or something to that affect was said by Jesus. All this talk about homosexuals being sinners is not helpful. Look inward. Who of you has not sinned? I have. I wonder how many of us have committed this very sin and in my case I know the answer. I am a sinner.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

KingdomHallsEnd:

Everyone who has replied has agreed generally that homosexuality is a sin.

I don’t not think that homosexuality is a sin. Just to be clear.

People have also said that “being homosexual is not a sin, but acting on the impulses is.”

That is where I stand.

I feel that there is no such thing as being homosexual. To be is your essence. That would mean that homosexuality is a permanent feature like nationaly or gender.

For starters you begin by stating :

I feel that there is no such thing as being homosexual.

I feel. Or from my perspective, "you feel". Why do your feelings trump others feelings or thought process.

To be is your essence. That would mean that homosexuality is a permanent feature like nationaly or gender.

This is where it gets interesting. First, let me say that ones “nationality” can change pretty easily. Or one’s ethnicity? What if one doesn’t know what it is (such as in the case of adoption) It matters little one way or the other ultimately. Anyway…

I was once a part of a discussion where it was put forth that our spirtuality and sexuality are very closely related. I couldn’t really make sense of it until I read parts of Pope JPIIs Theology of the Body almost 15 years later. In that context it made sense. Who we are sexually has a great deal to do with who we are and who we are meant to be. Who God meant us to be. One might even say “our essence”.

Is it a permanent state? I’m not going to try to answer that because I don’t think it’s that simple. Maybe in another post.

It is a sin because it is practiced periodically. Like lying. People lie at times, but that does not mean that lying is who they are, their essence.

You are on to something here. However, if one replaces “homo” with “hetero” it won’t work.

I do have a problem with self-identified gays who seem to make being gay who they are. I try to avoid the shorthand and say “person(s) with SSA or a homosexual orientation” They are a person first.

Basically, I don’t think that comparing 2 different kinds of sin works here. Lying and sexual sin are too far apart. Lying isn’t always a grave sin, in fact it isn’t always a sin. Sexual sin is always grave (but not always mortal.)

Therefore, homosexuals lie to themselves, their minions, and everyone else when they say that they are homosexual.

Indeed, I think they do a lot of lying to themselves. More so than to their minions and everyone else. BTW, who are their minions, anyway?

To be homosexual means that you lack self-control. They sin deliberately. It is not because “it’s just who they are.”

Does a person with bi-polar disorder have less self-control than you?

Let’s say there are three men, each struggling with sins of impurity but trying to be chaste. A person with SSA doesn’t sin anymore deliberately than a person who engages in masturbation or another goes too far on a date. I think there are some who have SSA have more self-control than you.

Okay, that’s it for now.

 

[Golf_Nut]

I know a couple of homosexuals and they certainly did not choose their disposition. As one has pointed out, who would choose to be a member of a hated and discriminated group?
These people really are that way.

 

[KingdomHallsEnd]

Bruised Reed:

I don’t not think that homosexuality is a sin. Just to be clear.

You hadn’t replied before my previous post so I wasn’t speaking about you, first of all. Second of all, homosexuality is a sin whether you think so or not.
Bruised Reed:

I feel. Or from my perspective, “you feel”. Why do your feelings trump others feelings or thought process.

When somebody says “I feel” it means that they are expressing their opinion. Opinion is not fact. My opinion is not a fact unless it complies with the teachings of the Church. I did not say, “I know.” Consequentially, I did not say or imply in any way that my feelings trump others feelings or thought processes. Be slow to speak next time somebody else says something similar.
Bruised Reed:

First, let me say that ones “nationality” can change pretty easily.

You misinterpreted the context. When I said “nationality”, I meant one’s heritage, his national and cultural background. That cannot change.
Bruised Reed:

Or one’s ethnicity? What if one doesn’t know what it is (such as in the case of adoption) It matters little one way or the other ultimately. Anyway…

This is irrelevant. I said nothing of this.
Bruised Reed:

Does a person with bi-polar disorder have less self-control than you?

Bi-polar disorder is a mental disorder. Homosexualtiy is not a mental disorder. It is not a disease or epidemic. Homosexuals were not born homosexual, just as a thief is not born as a thief.
Once again, I say, in my opinion, that homosexuality is a choice.
Bruised Reed:

Let’s say there are three men, each struggling with sins of impurity but trying to be chaste. A person with SSA doesn’t sin anymore deliberately than a person who engages in masturbation or another goes too far on a date. I think there are some who have SSA have more self-control than you.

Homosexuals lack self-control if they say to others that they are born that way. They are just too lazy to eradicate their homosexual thoughts. As far as your last comment, that is probably true, but you shouldn’t assume too much like that.
Bruised Reed:

Okay, that’s it for now

Please, no more! :nope: I beg.

 

[Golf_Nut]

Quite frankly, I am shocked by the level of holier than thou attitude and down right hatred of gays. Would Jesus speak this way? I think not. Worry about your own failings and never mind condemning others. that is their own affair not yours.