Homosexuality:Is this an acceptable answer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter NormalBeliever
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NormalBeliever

Guest
I’ve recently been researching the subject of homosexuality.

And I’ve come across a Catholic who answers the question ‘‘Is homosexuality a sin?’’ in a way that still ends up confusing me, since I don’t know whether or not it’s an appropriate answer or not to use.

When asked ‘‘Is homosexuality a sin?’’, the answer was:

''Homosexuality is not a sin. Like any other circumstance (including heterosexuality), it can be used against us, but it is not a sin. ‘’

The answer then goes on to say that gay people are loved and cherished by their creator and should be treated with love and understanding like Jesus would treat them.

My question is:Is this an answer that is consistent with Catholic teaching and can a Catholic actually use such an answer?

The answerer seems to talk about homosexuality in a way that it becomes a circumstance like heterosexuality, implying the answerer talks about the attraction and not the same-gender sex acts.

It doesn’t mention that homosexuality is an improper appetite that is outside of the natural order of things in terms of sexuality, or that homosexuality is disorder/a defect.

But I guess that is most likely because the answerer wanted to remain very polite and probably answer it in a non-offensive way, but I’m not 100% sure about that.

After all, you can interpret the ‘‘can be used against us’’ part as basically saying the homosexual lifestyle is morally neutral and is used against us the same way our skin color can be mocked and whatnot.

But that interpretation seems way out there and highly unlikely to be true considering the context clearly doesn’t imply this.

But what do you think?Is this an acceptable answer that clearly shows the person who answered the question has a traditional historical Catholic understanding or not?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
 
NormalBeliever said:
I’ve recently been researching the subject of homosexuality.

And I’ve come across a Catholic who answers the question ‘‘Is homosexuality a sin?’’ in a way that still ends up confusing me, since I don’t know whether or not it’s an appropriate answer or not to use.

When asked ‘‘Is homosexuality a sin?’’, the answer was:

''Homosexuality is not a sin. Like any other circumstance (including heterosexuality), it can be used against us, but it is not a sin. ‘’

The answer then goes on to say that gay people are loved and cherished by their creator and should be treated with love and understanding like Jesus would treat them.

My question is:Is this an answer that is consistent with Catholic teaching and can a Catholic actually use such an answer?

The answerer seems to talk about homosexuality in a way that it becomes a circumstance like heterosexuality, implying the answerer talks about the attraction and not the same-gender sex acts.

It doesn’t mention that homosexuality is an improper appetite that is outside of the natural order of things in terms of sexuality, or that homosexuality is disorder/a defect.

But I guess that is most likely because the answerer wanted to remain very polite and probably answer it in a non-offensive way, but I’m not 100% sure about that.

After all, you can interpret the ‘‘can be used against us’’ part as basically saying the homosexual lifestyle is morally neutral and is used against us the same way our skin color can be mocked and whatnot.

But that interpretation seems way out there and highly unlikely to be true considering the context clearly doesn’t imply this.

But what do you think?Is this an acceptable answer that clearly shows the person who answered the question has a traditional historical Catholic understanding or not?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
Iffy at best. People with SSA are loved by God, indeed, once, I struggled with this on and off for about 4 years.However, getting into a romantic homosexual relationship is a sin. A polygamist relationship is wrong, even if they don’t have sex. I’d wait for older, more educated people than me before you answer your question, though,
 
Scenario:

We have…
  1. A heterosexual male who knows what the Church teaches about the seriousness of sex outside of marriage but makes it a habit to hook up with any woman who is receptive to his advances and doesn’t worry about the eternal consequences of his actions.
  2. A homosexual male who knows what the Church teaches about the seriousness of sex outside of marriage and abstains from any type of sexual philandering, striving to live the best Christian life that he can.
Which of the two is in the worst position when he has to meet his Maker?

Being homosexual is not a sin; committing homosexual acts is.
 
NormalBeliever said:
I’ve recently been researching the subject of homosexuality.

And I’ve come across a Catholic who answers the question ‘‘Is homosexuality a sin?’’ in a way that still ends up confusing me, since I don’t know whether or not it’s an appropriate answer or not to use.

When asked ‘‘Is homosexuality a sin?’’, the answer was:

''Homosexuality is not a sin. Like any other circumstance (including heterosexuality), it can be used against us, but it is not a sin. ‘’

The answer then goes on to say that gay people are loved and cherished by their creator and should be treated with love and understanding like Jesus would treat them.

My question is:Is this an answer that is consistent with Catholic teaching and can a Catholic actually use such an answer?

The answerer seems to talk about homosexuality in a way that it becomes a circumstance like heterosexuality, implying the answerer talks about the attraction and not the same-gender sex acts.

It doesn’t mention that homosexuality is an improper appetite that is outside of the natural order of things in terms of sexuality, or that homosexuality is disorder/a defect.

But I guess that is most likely because the answerer wanted to remain very polite and probably answer it in a non-offensive way, but I’m not 100% sure about that.

After all, you can interpret the ‘‘can be used against us’’ part as basically saying the homosexual lifestyle is morally neutral and is used against us the same way our skin color can be mocked and whatnot.

But that interpretation seems way out there and highly unlikely to be true considering the context clearly doesn’t imply this.

But what do you think?Is this an acceptable answer that clearly shows the person who answered the question has a traditional historical Catholic understanding or not?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.
Click to expand...
Okay the confusion lies in what do you mean by homosexuality. There are two common definitions.
  1. The state of being sexually attracted to others of the same sex.
  2. Sexual relations between two people of the same sex.
In Catholic teaching, experience same sex sexual attraction is not considered sinful. It represents a temptation that must be resisted as it is considered objectively disordered (i.e. the object of the desire cannot be morally permissible since its directed at another person of the same sex). What is considered sinful is same sex sexual acts which include both physical acts and lustful thoughts.

If you are using definition 1. You would say homosexuality is not a sin, but if you are using definition 2, they you would say it is a sin. An issue is many people who make statements fail to clarify what they mean so a same sex attracted individual hears that it is a sin takes it to mean they are inherently sinning for experiencing same sex attraction. So instead of just making a blanket statement, be clear that the church considers same sex sexual acts sinful to avoid ambiguity.

The person is right also that heterosexuality can also lead to sin. We are all broken so people who are heterosexual and experience opposite sex attraction can also use that in sinful ways. Fornication is considered a sin, lust is still sinful, contraceptive use is considered sinful, adultery, divorce/remarriage (without an annulment) would be sinful. The major difference between heterosexuality and a person who is same sex attracted is that the opposite attracted person has an avenue where sexual relations is moral (i.e. within a marriage and that is open to life. However, there are plenty of ways people fall short in that regard and how heterosexuality also leads to temptation and issues for many.

I find defect a useless term in this regard. Disordered desires lead to temptation which represent a trial and a cross. Sometimes those trials are for a season while some are a thorn in our side that lasts our entire lives this side of heaven. Trying to apply medical terminology and language to it is kind of irrelevant since this is a spiritual issue and a spiritual concern (at least in my perspective).
 
at9009 said:
Okay the confusion lies in what do you mean by homosexuality. There are two common definitions.
  1. The state of being sexually attracted to others of the same sex.
  2. Sexual relations between two people of the same sex.
In Catholic teaching, experience same sex sexual attraction is not considered sinful. It represents a temptation that must be resisted as it is considered objectively disordered (i.e. the object of the desire cannot be morally permissible since its directed at another person of the same sex). What is considered sinful is same sex sexual acts which include both physical acts and lustful thoughts.

If you are using definition 1. You would say homosexuality is not a sin, but if you are using definition 2, they you would say it is a sin. An issue is many people who make statements fail to clarify what they mean so a same sex attracted individual hears that it is a sin takes it to mean they are inherently sinning for experiencing same sex attraction. So instead of just making a blanket statement, be clear that the church considers same sex sexual acts sinful to avoid ambiguity.
Click to expand...
The other reason for confusion, is that many who discuss this issue assume that anyone who calls themselves “homosexual” or “gay” means “I am an active practicing homosexual who fully supports the Gay Agenda including gay marriage, gay adoption, doctors being forced to perform gender-reassignment surgery, etc.”

So, they will assume that if someone claims to be “gay” then by definition they do not follow Catholic teaching about this topic. Even though the Pope and many bishops and priests use the terms “gay” and “homosexual”.

I guess it’s similar to how many people assume all devout Muslims have the same interpretation of “jihad” as the ISIS types. I’ve even seen people state “There are NO true moderate Muslims, the only Muslims who don’t support jihad are secularized Cafeteria Muslims, and so they don’t actually matter when it comes to discussing how horrible true Islam is”.

ETA: Sadly, while the Church itself teaches that it is possible to be a chaste homosexual, it seems to me that many who oppose the “Gay Agenda” ironically believe the narrative that “homosexuals are sexual degenerates who cannot control their lustful desires” and therefore don’t even see a point in discussing the difference between the attraction and the action, they assume “99% of people who say they’re gay oppose Church teaching and are sexually active, so what’s the point of discussing the 1%, if that, who don’t?”
 
brad90956 said:
40.png
Tim_D:
Being homosexual is not a sin; committing homosexual acts is.
Click to expand...
👍
Click to expand...
. x2 👍 👍
 
at9009 said:
Okay the confusion lies in what do you mean by homosexuality. There are two common definitions.
  1. The state of being sexually attracted to others of the same sex.
  2. Sexual relations between two people of the same sex.
In Catholic teaching, experience same sex sexual attraction is not considered sinful. It represents a temptation that must be resisted as it is considered objectively disordered (i.e. the object of the desire cannot be morally permissible since its directed at another person of the same sex). What is considered sinful is same sex sexual acts which include both physical acts and lustful thoughts.

If you are using definition 1. You would say homosexuality is not a sin, but if you are using definition 2, they you would say it is a sin…
Click to expand...
I think that what the person who gave the answer means when he says ‘‘circumstance’’ is to basically refer to homosexuality as an attraction.That, coupled with naming heterosexuality as a circumstance, makes it very likely the person is using definition 1, and not definition 2.

Now there is the less likely interpretation the answerer is using a much more liberal approach and that the language actually equates homosexuality as something like race that is morally neutral and is used against us in terms of it being mocked and whatnot.Which is against actual Church teaching.

However, I think that the context makes this a highly unlikely interpretation and that this is just me imagining far out interpretations out of my own head.

And another thing is the author does not say homosexuality is a objectively disordered in the sense that it leads to sin.

But I think that is because the person wanted to be very polite considering the answerer then goes on to say that gay people are cherished by God just like everyone of us and should only be treated with the same love and understanding that Jesus would give them and that anything less would be an affront to God.
 
Tim_D said:
Scenario:

We have…
  1. A heterosexual male who knows what the Church teaches about the seriousness of sex outside of marriage but makes it a habit to hook up with any woman who is receptive to his advances and doesn’t worry about the eternal consequences of his actions.
  2. A homosexual male who knows what the Church teaches about the seriousness of sex outside of marriage and abstains from any type of sexual philandering, striving to live the best Christian life that he can.
Which of the two is in the worst position when he has to meet his Maker?
Click to expand...
Well, I’d hope that the answer would be “the first guy” but I could, with some stretching, claim that IF the gay guy succumbs to temptation even once, then he is automatically headed to some lower level of hell than the heterosexual male who is hooking up with scores of women, because gay sex is “disordered” while straight sex isn’t, that at least the straight guy is using his genitals in a naturally ordered way.

I think many people would also need to think for a while if asked which sin is worse, a 20 something adult gay man having sex with a man of his own age, or a 20 something adult straight man having sex with a 13 year old girl who had her first period a month ago. That “well both are sins BUT the second man is still using his genitals in a way where procreation is possible, since the girl is post-pubescent”.

Certainly, the Josh Duggar fiasco made that apparent to me, that many Christians found his sexually predatory actions directed at young girls (even the pre-pubescent ones), to be far less grave than the sins of homosexuals who have consensual sex. Although to be fair, if he’d been even 2-3 years older than age 15 he likely would gotten harsher criticism. Certainly, many of the people who defended his “young mistakes” were not as eager to defend him once we found out his acts of adultery as a grown married man.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
Well, I’d hope that the answer would be “the first guy” but I could, with some stretching, claim that IF the gay guy succumbs to temptation even once, then he is automatically headed to some lower level of hell than the heterosexual male who is hooking up with scores of women, because gay sex is “disordered” while straight sex isn’t, that at least the straight guy is using his genitals in a naturally ordered way.

I think many people would also need to think for a while if asked which sin is worse, a 20 something adult gay man having sex with a man of his own age, or a 20 something adult straight man having sex with a 13 year old girl who had her first period a month ago. That “well both are sins BUT the second man is still using his genitals in a way where procreation is possible, since the girl is post-pubescent”.

Certainly, the Josh Duggar fiasco made that apparent to me, that many Christians found his sexually predatory actions directed at young girls (even the pre-pubescent ones), to be far less grave than the sins of homosexuals who have consensual sex. Although to be fair, if he’d been even 2-3 years older than age 15 he likely would gotten harsher criticism. Certainly, many of the people who defended his “young mistakes” were not as eager to defend him once we found out his acts of adultery as a grown married man.
Click to expand...
This makes my head hurt. Plus, mortal sins are mortal sins. Predatorial actions are worse than consensual homosexual ones, but it is still a mortal sin to have homosexual sex.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
The other reason for confusion, is that many who discuss this issue assume that anyone who calls themselves “homosexual” or “gay” means “I am an active practicing homosexual who fully supports the Gay Agenda including gay marriage, gay adoption, doctors being forced to perform gender-reassignment surgery, etc.”

So, they will assume that if someone claims to be “gay” then by definition they do not follow Catholic teaching about this topic. Even though the Pope and many bishops and priests use the terms “gay” and “homosexual”.

I guess it’s similar to how many people assume all devout Muslims have the same interpretation of “jihad” as the ISIS types. I’ve even seen people state “There are NO true moderate Muslims, the only Muslims who don’t support jihad are secularized Cafeteria Muslims, and so they don’t actually matter when it comes to discussing how horrible true Islam is”.

ETA: Sadly, while the Church itself teaches that it is possible to be a chaste homosexual, it seems to me that many who oppose the “Gay Agenda” ironically believe the narrative that “homosexuals are sexual degenerates who cannot control their lustful desires” and therefore don’t even see a point in discussing the difference between the attraction and the action, they assume “99% of people who say they’re gay oppose Church teaching and are sexually active, so what’s the point of discussing the 1%, if that, who don’t?”
Click to expand...
Actually, most of us recognize the need to help those people, and some suffer(ed) from it ourselves.
 
Upgrade25 said:
This makes my head hurt. Plus, mortal sins are mortal sins. Predatorial actions are worse than consensual homosexual ones, but it is still a mortal sin to have homosexual sex.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you on this. What makes MY head hurt, though, is why having homosexual sex is somehow at least hundreds of times as worse as any other consensual sexual sin, though many on CAF post as if that is an obvious fact.

And yes, I’ve read and heard the variations of the “homosexual sex is disordered in a way heterosexual sex isn’t” argument, but somehow I don’t think this justifies the level of vitriol many people have for this particular sin, compared to others.

ETA: Also, many heterosexuals commit the same sins of “sodomy” that homosexuals do, yet apparently they’re still considered morally superior, and I confess just don’t get why that is so, either.
 
Upgrade25 said:
Iffy at best. People with SSA are loved by God, indeed, once, I struggled with this on and off for about 4 years.However, getting into a romantic homosexual relationship is a sin. A polygamist relationship is wrong, even if they don’t have sex. I’d wait for older, more educated people than me before you answer your question, though,
Click to expand...
The OP didn’t ask about “SSA.” The question was about homosexuality.
 
randomuser said:
The OP didn’t ask about “SSA.” The question was about homosexuality.
Click to expand...
That is true, but ‘‘homosexuality’’ is often used as a term to describe the very attraction itself, so that too is included in the discussion of the original OP’s question.
 
I think we’ve come to a place in the West where we use many qualifiers in order to minimize negative perception for participation in behavior which God has condemned. Many seem be trying not to be seen as “haters” rather than speakers of truth.

*Nevertheless, many of the leaders believed in Him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue. 43For they loved praise from men more than praise from God. John 12:42-43. *

Pax
 
DaddyGirl said:
From what I understand, having sex outside what is considered a “valid” marriage is considered a “sin” in the Catholic paradigm, whatever the person’s sexual orientation–be they homo/heterosexual.

The person’s actual sexual orientation isn’t a sin…after all, this God apparently created everyone.

So according to Catholic teaching, being gay and having SSA is not a sin.

But having sex outside a Catholic marriage is.

.
Click to expand...
I wonder, what do people think about Jesus’ saying “if you look at someone lustfully, you have already committed adultery”.

I think the difference is, there is a time and place where sexual interaction between a man and a woman is ok. But there’s no place where a Christian can come up with a place where sexual interaction between 2 people of the same sex is ok, at least not without disregarding God and the Church. By what mechanism then, would it follow that to have thoughts or fantasies about something that is never permitted by God is therefore ok?

Though not minimizing the struggle, if the Church teaches that the act is inherently disordered, by what authority would we teach anything different?

Seriously, just curious of those who hold a differing opinion.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
…it seems to me that many who oppose the “Gay Agenda” ironically believe the narrative that "homosexuals … don’t even see a point in discussing the difference between the attraction and the action, they assume "99% of people who say they’re gay …are sexually active…
Click to expand...
I’ve edited your post above to draw out a subset of what you said. I suspect the reason many people think this way is that, in the main, the people that they encounter who experience homosexual attractions are people who are “public” about that fact – and people who are public about their own homosexual attractions are most likely to view it as not something to be rejected, but rather something to be embraced. So by weight of numbers, a conclusion about “the whole” is reached. Statistically invalid of course.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
Well, I’d hope that the answer would be “the first guy” but I could, with some stretching, claim that IF the gay guy succumbs to temptation even once, then he is automatically headed to some lower level of hell than the heterosexual male who is hooking up with scores of women, because gay sex is “disordered” while straight sex isn’t, that at least the straight guy is using his genitals in a naturally ordered way.
Click to expand...
This profoundly misunderstands (or misrepresents) the situation.

There is a great deal of “stretching” in what you write. Sexual acts between a man and a woman who are not married to each other (fornication, adultery, etc) are disordered.

CCC1755: * "…There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. "*

The term “intrinsically disordered” means “always wrong to choose”.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
…What makes MY head hurt, though, is why having homosexual sex is somehow at least hundreds of times as worse as any other consensual sexual sin, though many on CAF post as if that is an obvious fact.
Click to expand...
Have you read in any credible source of moral guidance that homosexual sex acts are “100s of times worse” than fornication ? Or is this just something you’ve heard (unspecified) “people” say on CAF?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top