Homosexuality is not a sin?

[latin_rite]

Oh no… Not again…

Not everyone reads every post. This might have been posted on here before. I looked couldn’t see it so i posted my own question. That’s the way it works

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Time for the church to revisit their understanding of sexuality in general. I am not alone in this perspective as many theologians agree. Many priests and Bishops also agree that we need to make changes but they must do this secretly or be punished. Most of the laity also want changes but they have no say as the church is run like a monarchy.

Force the Church to change her teaching on homosexuality (the action) as no longer sinful and sign on to homosexual “marriage”?

This is shameful drivel.

It has been specifically addressed and settled in 1986 by CDF
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

…increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

1. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
…

I suggest you read or re-read the Letter in its entirety.

Individuals and these so called pressure groups that undermine the Church on said teaching should just put up or shut up.
,

 

[LegoGE1947]

Force the Church to change her teaching on homosexuality (the action) as no longer sinful and sign on to homosexual “marriage”?

This is shameful drivel.

It has been specifically addressed and settled in 1986 by CDF
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

I suggest you read or re-read the Letter in its entirety.

Individuals and these so called pressure groups that undermine the Church on said teaching should just put up or shut up.
,

Sad to say but I’ve heard that June has been declared “Gay Pride Month.” I like better what the Catholic Church has done–Dedicated June to the “Sacred Heart of Jesus.”

 

[Rau]

Time for the church to revisit their understanding of sexuality in general…

What specifics did you have in mind Jessie?

 

[curlycool89]

Time for the church to revisit their understanding of sexuality in general. I am not alone in this perspective as many theologians agree.

Sexuality is a gift given us by God, and it is the first commandment in the Bible (“be fruitful and multiply”).

Sexuality is also ordered for a certain purpose: procreative and unitive. That’s the natural law. Something that goes against that order is by definition disordered (not-ordered), and so must be rejected.

Most of the laity also want changes but they have no say as the church is run like a monarchy.

In fact, the Church is a monarchy, and Jesus is the King. The Pope is His Chief Steward and Castellan, and cannot contradict that which has been revealed by the Word of God. The Church is not a democracy, thank God.

The laity do not get a say. There is a reason why in the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, the sheep are the ones who enter into the Kingdom.

 

[johnnykins]

Sexuality is also ordered for a certain purpose: procreative and unitive. That’s the natural law. Something that goes against that order is by definition disordered (not-ordered), and so must be rejected.

I think you may be the first person that I have seen on this forum to actually correctly state this matter. Contrary to the post #2 above, the Church has no charism whatsoever to decide issues of psychology…the Church never has stated that homosexuality is psychologically disordered.

When the Church uses the word “disordered” it is used exactly as you used it above and it has no psychological implications. It’s a pity that often the Church in an effort to be precise leads many to conclusions it never intended to make or imply.

Well done.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Time for the church to revisit their understanding of sexuality in general. I am not alone in this perspective as many theologians agree. Many priests and Bishops also agree that we need to make changes but they must do this secretly or be punished. Most of the laity also want changes but they have no say as the church is run like a monarchy.

Do tell - what other areas have you spoken with the Holy Spirit on that need updating, so that we may tell the Pope?

It becomes hard for you to defend **anything ** the Church teaches if you decide to selectively refute even one thing. Once that begins, they can by default be wrong about every other issue you actually do agree with.

The teaching on homosexuality, like abortion, the Immaculate Conception, the requirement of an all-male priesthood, are issues that will never, ever change. You can hold whatever beliefa you want, but if they run contrary to the Church, you are seriously wasting your time.

 

[Sonic]

Chatting online and came across this in a discussion.

Catholicism teaches that homosexuality is not a sin. It is a trial for people, and they should be treated with respect and not discriminated against. The sin is the act of homosexual intercourse, just as fornication is a sin. What makes homosexual intercourse sinful is that the two men can not be married, so all intercourse would be fornication.

I just want to point out something I think many people are missing when reading the catechism. Here is the full quote:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

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.

source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

Let’s look at the first line:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

Relations is the key action word. It does not refer to homosexuality as attraction, but rather actions taken between individuals with Same Sex Attraction. It is talking about “relations” between men or between women of the same sex.

The catechism is very clear that when using the word homosexuality it is referring to an action or conduct between individuals, and then it goes on to state…

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 

[Sonic]

Let’s make the quote from the Catechism clearer as we study it…

Sometimes it helps to break things down to comprehend a paragraph more fully.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.

[Homosexuality] has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures.

[Homosexuality’s] psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142

[Homosexual acts] are contrary to the natural law.

[Homosexual acts] close the sexual act to the gift of life.

[Homosexual acts] do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

Under no circumstances can [Homosexual acts] be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.

[Homosexual tendencies], which [are] objectively disordered, constitutes for most [men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies] a trial.

[Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

[Men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies] are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

By the virtues of self-mastery that teach [Homosexual persons] inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, [Homosexual persons] can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

source: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Do tell - what other areas have you spoken with the Holy Spirit on that need updating, so that we may tell the Pope?

It becomes hard for you to defend **anything ** the Church teaches if you decide to selectively refute even one thing. Once that begins, they can by default be wrong about every other issue you actually do agree with.

The teaching on homosexuality, like abortion, the Immaculate Conception, the requirement of an all-male priesthood, are issues that will never, ever change. You can hold whatever beliefa you want, but if they run contrary to the Church, you are seriously wasting your time.

I figured as much…

 

[gardenswithkids]

Chatting online and came across this in a discussion.

What he is saying is that homosexuality isn’t a sin because of homosexuality, but because it is fornication

“Fornication” may be *one *of the sinful aspect of acting on homosexual inclinations, but it is not the only. Homosexual sexual activity is not–and never can be–ordered towards pro-creation.

Be careful promoting the viewpoint that homosexual actions are wrong just because it’s fornication–because that can lead people to error by thinking the issue might be resolve if only society and the Church allowed them to marry a person of the same sex. It won’t.

 

[Brendan]

…they have no say as the church is run like a monarchy.

Of course the Church is a monarchy. What else could it be and have Christ as it’s head??.

Heaven IS a monarchy and Christ is the King of Kings. Not only that, Christ would be what we call today an ‘absolute monarch’ in that his power is unlimited. There is no Parliament of Angels in Heaven to limit the power of the God, no Constitution that God is subject to.

Therefore, any institution that has Christ as it’s head is logically required to be an absolute monarchy. Anything less means that Christ really isn’t the head of the institution.

How much of a vote do you think the angels have on what is moral or not? Do you think there are rows of backbencher seraphim calling for new legislation on gay marriage in Heaven? No, God says it, and they give their whole being into obeying.

If the angels don’t get to decide what it moral truth or not, why should any of us get a vote?

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Of course the Church is a monarchy. What else could it be and have Christ as it’s head??.

Heaven IS a monarchy and Christ is the King of Kings. Not only that, Christ would be what we call today an ‘absolute monarch’ in that his power is unlimited. There is no Parliament of Angels in Heaven to limit the power of the God, no Constitution that God is subject to.

Therefore, any institution that has Christ as it’s head is logically required to be an absolute monarchy. Anything less means that Christ really isn’t the head of the institution.

How much of a vote do you think the angels have on what is moral or not? Do you think there are rows of backbencher seraphim calling for new legislation on gay marriage in Heaven? No, God says it, and they give their whole being into obeying.

If the angels don’t get to decide what it moral truth or not, why should any of us get a vote?

Her response is almost comical, frankly.

We are led by the Christ the King, and yet we are shocked the Church is run like a monarchy???

 

[Brendan]

Her response is almost comical, frankly.

We are led by the Christ the King, and yet we are shocked the Church is run like a monarchy???

What a lot of people do not realize, is that when Christ spoke to St. Peter after the Resurrection in John 21:16

He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”

The word that St. John recorded was a lot more forceful than the English word ‘tend’

Jesus tells Peter to ‘tend my sheep’, but the word that John recorded is poimainō, to rule. It’s the same verb used to describe the relationship between a king and his subjects, or between an officer and his troops. it is a verb means one has command authority.

It’s also the exact same verb that John used to describe how Christ will rule in the Second Coming ( Rev 2:27, Rev 12:5 - "He shall rule ( poimainō) them with a rod of iron).

John is showing that Peter, the first Pope was given very strong authority, much more than the English verb ‘tend’ implies.

Christ gave the authority to rule, so that the Popes and the Bishops, via the authority of Christ, command with the same authority Christ Himself will command with at the end of time.

So it really is no question that the Church is run the way it is, Christ specifically told Peter to do so, and gave him that authority.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

We are led by the Christ the King, and yet we are shocked the Church is run like a monarchy???

Happy, I don’t know that people are shocked that the Church is run like a monarchy per se. I think people are disappointed (and occasionally frustrated) when the the Church is run like any other monarchy.

It’s one thing to ascribe the attribute of kingship or imperial majesty to God because that says something to us about God’s dominion and the sui generis nature of his authority. But it doesn’t tell the whole story, and it can’t. God is not a king like any other earthly king, nor is his empire an empire like any other human empire–the trial of Jesus and the crucifixion itself make all of that abundantly clear. And it’s not the case that God’s empire is like a human empire, only it’s on steroids; or that God’s power is like human power, only bigger. More often than not, power, for us, means the ability to destroy at will. But Jesus makes clear that from his perspective, power means self-sacrifice.

So there are limits to the degree to which “King” or “Empire” or other descriptors or understandings of human power are actually fitting descriptions of what God really is or is about. And where that limit lies has to do with the symbolic nature of language: it’s capacity–particularly through poetry, art and metaphor–to body forth or represent a reality which nonetheless eludes our full comprehension. When we lose the consciousness of language-as-symbol, then we run the risk of idolatry.

How much of a vote do you think the angels have on what is moral or not? Do you think there are rows of backbencher seraphim calling for new legislation on gay marriage in Heaven? No, God says it, and they give their whole being into obeying.

Brendan, I think you’ve put the cart before the horse here. A thing is not moral or immoral because God declares it so. A thing is moral or immoral because of who and what God is. If the morality of an act depends only on an authoritative proclamation, then morality is not actually intrinsic to the act, but is merely forensically associated with it. Which is to hint at an understanding of the universe that would say it is good not because God actually made it good, but only because God declared it good.

The more we talk about morality in terms of the “God said so” approach, the more we run the risk of conceiving the good not in terms of what God is, but in terms of what we think authority is and how it should work. And, again, we’re in danger of idolatry.

If living the moral life is just a matter of submitting to authority as opposed to living into a life of love characterized by a right relationship to the world and all that’s in it, the more rightness and goodness become juridical concepts as opposed to lived realities.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Happy, I don’t know that people are shocked that the Church is run like a monarchy per se. I think people are disappointed (and occasionally frustrated) when the the Church is run like any other monarchy.

It’s one thing to ascribe the attribute of kingship or imperial majesty to God because that says something to us about God’s dominion and the sui generis nature of his authority. But it doesn’t tell the whole story, and it can’t. God is not a king like any other earthly king, nor is his empire an empire like any other human empire–the trial of Jesus and the crucifixion itself make all of that abundantly clear. And it’s not the case that God’s empire is like a human empire, only it’s on steroids; or that God’s power is like human power, only bigger. More often than not, power, for us, means the ability to destroy at will. But Jesus makes clear that from his perspective, power means self-sacrifice.

So there are limits to the degree to which “King” or “Empire” or other descriptors or understandings of human power are actually fitting descriptions of what God really is or is about. And where that limit lies has to do with the symbolic nature of language: it’s capacity–particularly through poetry, art and metaphor–to body forth or represent a reality which nonetheless eludes our full comprehension. When we lose the consciousness of language-as-symbol, then we run the risk of idolatry.

Brendan, I think you’ve put the cart before the horse here. A thing is not moral or immoral because God declares it so. A thing is moral or immoral because of who and what God is. If the morality of an act depends only on an authoritative proclamation, then morality is not actually intrinsic to the act, but is merely forensically associated with it. Which is to hint at an understanding of the universe that would say it is good not because God actually made it good, but only because God declared it good.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

The more we talk about morality in terms of the “God said so” approach, the more we run the risk of conceiving the good not in terms of what God is, but in terms of what we think authority is and how it should work. And, again, we’re in danger of idolatry.

The Church is the voice of God some listen to and others do not. Homosexual acts are immoral as is same sex marriage. God says so.

If living the moral life is just a matter of submitting to authority as opposed to living into a life of love characterized by a right relationship to the world and all that’s in it, the more rightness and goodness become juridical concepts as opposed to lived realities.

Be not conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind for what do you gain if you gain the world and lose your life to it. God says so.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

The Church is the voice of God some listen to and others do not. Homosexual acts are immoral as is same sex marriage. God says so.

Be not conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind for what do you gain if you gain the world and lose your life to it. God says so.

Hi Coptic. Just to reiterate (as you may have misunderstood it):

If living the moral life is just a matter of submitting to authority as opposed to living into a life of love characterized by a right relationship to the world and all that’s in it, the more rightness and goodness become juridical concepts as opposed to lived realities.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Coptic. Just to reiterate (as you may have misunderstood it):

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

If living the moral life is just a matter of submitting to authority as opposed to living into a life of love characterized by a right relationship to the world and all that’s in it, the more rightness and goodness become juridical concepts as opposed to lived realities.

Living the moral life is based on 4 things…

Profession of Faith…and part of that profession is belief in the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church…

We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) theresurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."

secondly it involves living a Sacramental life

Next it involves living a moral life, Life in Christ…submitting to the authority of the OHCAC that you profess you believe in that is not opposed to living a life of love with a proper relationship to the world and all that is in it…rightness is related to acknowledging the authority of the OHCAC and its teachings and realizing that it is not juridical rather the only lived reality that will cause you to become Holy as God is Holyand

we pray and ask for help…

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, I think you’ve put the cart before the horse here. A thing is not moral or immoral because God declares it so. A thing is moral or immoral because of who and what God is. If the morality of an act depends only on an authoritative proclamation, then morality is not actually intrinsic to the act, but is merely forensically associated with it. Which is to hint at an understanding of the universe that would say it is good not because God actually made it good, but only because God declared it good.

I do fully understand that. My statement re God says it, angels obey was a statement on command.

But you hit the nail on the head regarding what Jessie is asking for. Things are moral or immoral because they are offenses to the person and nature of God.

So it would not be a matter of the Church changing it’s position on a matter of morality, but such a thing would require a change to God Himself (which is a logical impossibility)

The Church has no power to change God into something that He is not, and it is therefore impossible for the Church to change alter a known position on matters of Faith or Morals.

 

[thistle]

I

Once again we run afoul of definitions.

What definition of homosexuality is being used? What definition of sin is being used?

Are we using “homosexuality” to refer to tendencies, desires, or acts?

Are we using “sin” to mean anything that is contrary to perfection or to an act for for which an individual is personally accountable?

The Church is clear on this.
Same sex tendency/attraction which is not acted on is disordered but not a sin.
Same sex sexual acts is a grave sin.