R
Rau
Guest
Yes, some would call it “politically correct speak”. But often its just a euphemism. The current favourite is “marriage equality”, rather than the more obviously accurate and descriptive “same sex marriage”.
- Status
A
at9009
Guest
This is kind of like creating a self-fulling prophecy. If one views that only open gay/ssa people are part of ‘the gay agenda,’ then the person who is struggling with their faith and this issue will feel like they have to suffer in silence and alone otherwise they’d be viewed as some kind of Trojan horse that will ultimately leave anyway. Overtime, the failures to temptations begin to feel inevitable to them and the small successes feel hollow. That inevitable leads to a discussion and crisis of faith which in all honesty is not handled well in a lot of Christian circles, so many lose their faith and leave the church.
It is rather frustrating that I am expected to be charitable (which I always try to be) but I have to tip toe my a way around this issue with certain language and go out on my way to prove my adherence to Catholic orthodoxy which ultimately doesn’t really matter because a substantial minority will still have skeptical views if not suspicious views just because I’m gay/ssa.
What saved me and helped give me hope was to see people like Joey Prever, Melinda Selmys, Ron Belgau, and Eve Tushnet as representative Catholics who are not only dealing with this issues but living fulfilling lives. It’s not some abstract but actual people which helps you feel less alone. Yet, I still see plenty of people basically attack them often uncharitably simply for being open about their cross.
A
at9009
Guest
I’ve seen it a lot. The basic premise is both are considered mortal sins but homosexual acts are crimes against nature and sins called out against Heaven. They often also reference Saint Thomas Aquinas. The inference often made is that you are 1000% worse for being tempted or succumbing to temptation for same sex sexual acts (both lust or physical) thus are worse and more of a bad person than a person succumbing to commit an opposite sex sexual act outside what is considered moral within our faith traditions.
The issue is not that the teaching that yes homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. There just does feel like at best an unintentional at worse intentional effort to put as much shame and self-loathing on a person for having these particular temptations. Words like pervert, sodomite get thrown around a lot with what feels like the sole purposes to divide.
Rather, it would be helpful for this particular cross to be treated as what it is: another cross. But in this hyperpolarized world that doesn’t happen. In some Christian circles, not only do you have to resist temptation, it’s implied that you should be making some progress to becoming straight, should do everything in your power to never loud or causes suspicions to your same sex attraction, and never talk about it (because what feels like the inference that ‘good Christians’ don’t deal with that or because it feels like some would rather those people disappear into the back of the pews and we can soley focus on the intellectual debate of labels rather than actually support those with this cross.
R
Rau
Guest
It is commendable that you are here, willing and able to help persons with the struggle just as you were helped by those you mention above.
R
Rau
Guest
I have been around here a while, and I do not find that attitude common on CAF.
Those that partake in “pride” parades are not seeking that understanding, but rather something quite different. It is that conduct that is commonly witnessed and which is often mistakenly thought to be the norm.
That is not a Catholic position though. But also, I don’t believe it’s the case that our moral crosses are to be put on public display in order that we may seek help.
And BTW, multiple sins are in the set that “cry out to heaven”. I can’t tell you which though.
G
goout
Guest
Depends what you mean by “being gay”. If you mean a person who acts on their attraction, then yes it would be sinful.
The Church teaches that acts which are not ordered to the way we are made are sinful. This is of course not limited to homosexual acts. It encompasses the whole range of human acts.
Disordered means the attraction or act is not ordered to the way we are. Christianity accepts the words “I Am” uttered by God at face value. A person is a being. God is a being. Or rather God is being itself, from whom we receive our being. The way we are is important.
A human being is a unity of body and soul. The two are inseparable. We can also say, with God, “I am”.
The male and female body are ordered to creative and fruitful love. This is self evident. The body is a sign (or sacrament) of that reality.
Confusion arises when people take this sacramentality and project it into results. In other words, a celibate person might be incorrectly labeled as disordered because they are not procreating children.
Not so.
There is a difference between being ordered to a thing, and acting. There is a difference between acting and not-acting.
So a person who is attracted to the same sex has an attraction that is not ordered to the way we are made. But that attraction is not sinful per se. The person is not culpable for an attraction, only for acts.
**In Christian morality we evaluate acts. A person is culpable for chosen acts, not attractions.
**
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I do think there are indeed some in the Church who yearn for the “good old days” when gay people were not so visible. Many seem to expect those who carry the SSA cross to do so in silence, and not even discuss their sexuality with their own family and friends, and think doing that is just as bad as marching in a gay pride parade. As opposed to other sexual sins such as porn and masturbation, where the sinners are often encouraged to find “accountability partners”.
I also think those who advocate that those with SSA stay in the closet, don’t realize how hard that can be. Especially in more conservative evangelical Christian groups, it is expected that everyone marry and have kids at some point, many are pressured to do so as quickly as possible, rather than “burn with passion”.
It’s also the case that some don’t even see children as independent adults until they marry - such as the Duggars, note that none of the “children” living at home have any independent social media presence, it’s only the married ones who do. So, there is a lot of pressure to marry, and not pursuing marriage is going to raise alarms that a person must be gay. Sadly, some would even advocate those who have SSA but not exclusive SSA, and therefore marry, hide their “shame” even from their own spouses.
And many who use such words justify it by stating they have a duty to provide “fraternal correction” to male sure gay people have no confusion at all about Church teaching. I especially recall this attitudes when it came to Pope and some Bishops making comments about apologizing to homosexuals.
I do realize, though, that not everyone who posts hostile comments on the Internet when it comes to the gay rights movement as a political opponent, actually treat individual gay people in a cruel way.
Another justification I often hear for people treating homosexual acts as an especially bad is “well, unlike gays, we don’t ever see anyone march to express pride in adultery, porn use, etc, people know such acts are wrong even if they’re tempted to that sin”.
Uh, “The People Against Larry Flint”, anyone? That was certainly a movie that portrayed Flint as a hero fighting against hypocritical fundies and was hardly accurate about the kind of filth he was actually publishing. Adultery is constantly romanticized in movies, and fornication is portrayed as a given.
Celebrity interest magazines often portray adulterous relationships as no big deal, when Jerry Seinfeld started dating his now-wife she was still married to her first husband, but this was portrayed not as a scandal, but within the norm for celebrities.
So, I suspect adulterers don’t bother to march because they know most people accept that adultery is a private issue between spouses and not even necessarily “wrong” if the spouse is OK with it. Many think that if a married couple agrees to separate for a few months and date others, even have sex with others, while legally married, that’s perfectly fine, and neither are guilty of any sin.
Same with other sexual sins where the Church has essentially conceded defeat when it comes to having any influence over how secular society views them.
Yes, one poster in a recent topic seemed to assume that she could decrease the risk of her children having SSA themselves, by keeping them away from those who are gay or believe “gay is okay”, and that if despite all that they still suffered from SSA, they should stay silent about it. But when I asked her to clarify if that actually meant that she would expect her children to not tell her either, she never answered.
K
kozlosap
Guest
:shrug:Yes, one poster in a recent topic seemed to assume that she could decrease the risk of her children having SSA themselves, by keeping them away from those who are gay or believe “gay is okay”, and that if despite all that they still suffered from SSA, they should stay silent about it. But when I asked her to clarify if that actually meant that she would expect her children to not tell her either, she never answered.
What a sad way to live. If that posters colleges age kid wear offered an internship at Apple with Tim Cook, they would have to decline because, ya know, being LGBTQ is catching…Russia would be a great place for said poster to reside in 2016.
What a sad way to live. If that posters colleges age kid wear offered an internship at Apple with Tim Cook, they would have to decline because, ya know, being LGBTQ is catching…Russia would be a great place for said poster to reside in 2016.
J
jjr9
Guest
This can be very confusing. If you want to answer this question with the intent to bring the
individual closer to the Lord you are on the right track.
The answer you cite I believe a poor one it is not at all clear what the answer means. The inference
seems to be SSA on its own is not sinful if SS behavior is not engaged in. SSA is a temptation and
if only a random thought certainly this is not a sin; however if an individual intentionally dwells in
this thought pattern this certainly is sinful behavior.
The Catechism talks about this 1853: ( Ref vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm )
“They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided
into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission.”
God bless
N
NormalBeliever
Guest
I agree.But I would just like to add that the person who answered this seemed to have wanted to be as polite as possible and the answer could perhaps be interpreted as a welcoming sign to people who are not close to the Lord.
But I cannot be absolutely sure about that.The person who answered did not mention, say, that SSA was an improper appetite that is outside the natural order, but I think that was in order to stay polite and answer without putting too many words into it.
So what I’m getting at from your answer above is that the answer the person originally gave would be useful if we are trying to bring a person back to the Lord who is currently lost or to try to start swaying a non-believer to consider the Christian position, correct?
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
So far it seems there are two general approaches to SSA among Christians:
One is the “fire and brimstone” approach, make it very clear that homosexual acts are mortally sinful, emphasize the perverseness of the acts, emphasize God’s wrath, and hope that the SSA person will refrain from such acts out of fear of Hell, or at least stop being so open about being even tempted to commit such a disgusting sin.
Another is a more charitable approach that involves getting the SSA person to understand the reasons why such acts are sinful, and provide understanding, love, and support of the person, even the person who has fallen to temptation.
There is, of course, the third option many embrace these days, to simply accept both the inclination and practice of homosexuality, and endorse SSM so that now people with SSA can have chaste married sex just like straight people.
A fourth option is to just assume the vast majority of homosexuals are irredeemable sinners who can never be converted, and to not even try to get them to change their views. Some who take the fourth option still think it worthwhile to fight the political gay agenda, others have given up on that as well and are just waiting for the Second Coming.
I get the feeling Pope Francis and many others in the Church would endorse Option Two, but that’s just me.
N
NormalBeliever
Guest
Well then, where would you put the answer the person gave?So far it seems there are two general approaches to SSA among Christians:
One is the “fire and brimstone” approach, make it very clear that homosexual acts are mortally sinful, emphasize the perverseness of the acts, emphasize God’s wrath, and hope that the SSA person will refrain from such acts out of fear of Hell, or at least stop being so open about being even tempted to commit such a disgusting sin.
Another is a more charitable approach that involves getting the SSA person to understand the reasons why such acts are sinful, and provide understanding, love, and support of the person, even the person who has fallen to temptation.
There is, of course, the third option many embrace these days, to simply accept both the inclination and practice of homosexuality, and endorse SSM so that now people with SSA can have chaste married sex just like straight people.
A fourth option is to just assume the vast majority of homosexuals are irredeemable sinners who can never be converted, and to not even try to get them to change their views. Some who take the fourth option still think it worthwhile to fight the political gay agenda, others have given up on that as well and are just waiting for the Second Coming.
I get the feeling Pope Francis and many others in the Church would endorse Option Two, but that’s just me.
It seems to be obviously the charitable one, namely approach 2, but without the person directly saying it is sinful or going over why it is considered sinful.
The answerer does say that homosexuality, like any other circumstance, can be used against us implying that she believes the acts are sinful.Would you agree?
And yes,I said ‘‘she’’ because the answerer is actually female and I think I wanted to point this out because I think that there is a chance that female believers tend to be more compassionate in this regard, thus explaining the structure of the answer.
But I don’t know whether or not the answerer being female is enough to fully explain the overly polite tone though…
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
To me it’s pretty obvious that the answerer is referring to “homosexuality” the orientation, not the action. But I suppose you could argue that the reply is too ambiguous.
IMHO, while many people defend harsh words about this topic by stating they don’t want any ambiguity about what the Church teaches, sometimes I do feel like doing an eye-roll and saying “Oh c’mon, do you really think there actually are any gay people around these days who DON’T know what the Church teaches about homosexual actions?”
I’d also point out that Option Two is an approach that is not meant to be a “one and done” deal. I think many Christians think the only way people get converted and change their beliefs is through an abrupt moment when the scales suddenly fall from their eyes and they are Instantly Saved. This is the approach to salvation itself touted by many evangelical Churches who use the “altar calls” and “Sinner’s prayers”, and many even believe in Once Saved Always Saved.
But, I think the vast majority of those who have changed their minds about homosexuality (in either direction) did NOT had any moment of sudden epiphany that made them change their minds 180 degrees. Even the ones who claim “I was 100% against homosexuals until my own child came out and I realized I was wrong and now I support SSM”. I assume for most such people this didn’t happen that very instant but took some time.
Not really, men can speak and write that way too. Anyway, if this was meant to be a one-and-done answer meant to Explain It All about the Church’s teachings, then I agree it was incomplete. But as part of an ongoing discussion, I think it has value.
N
NormalBeliever
Guest
Well, to further the information about the answerer,the answerer is also strictly pro-life saying she is pro-life in pretty much all cases (as far as I can remember) so she is pretty much a well-formed conservative then.
But I don’t think whether I can with any certainty determine whether or not her answer was supposed to be a part of an ongoing discussion because she doesn’t say anything more about this topic after answering the question.
Which was by the way sent to her by an anonymous person who perhaps asked the question so he could learn more about her beliefs without there being anything indicating the person who asked her was himself a homosexual.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
Well, I don’t think I can comment much further without actually reading the original statements in context.
I will say that, as far as I know, the purpose of Catholic apologetics is not necessarily to convert people to the Church, that would be evangelism, not apologetics. Apologetics is more about dispelling myths and inaccurate accusations, though the ultimate goal is to explain Church teachings.
It is certainly inaccurate to state the Church holds homosexuality, the orientation, to be sinful. Maybe this person was only trying to dispel that notion, not actually explain the teachings in detail.
G
goout
Guest
This confusion demonstrates why it’s good to use “same sex attraction” to distinguish from homosexuality which implies activity and lifestyle rather than attraction.
(yes, Jesus did say that sin can be in the heart without overt action, but he was referring to looking with lust, not attraction)
J
jjr9
Guest
I am all for being polite but the answer you reference is ambiguous I don’t believe it helpful
no matter the intent. If this person was in dialogue the other person could seek clarification.
If the conversation leads them both toward the Lord the conversation is good if the path is away
from the Lord the result is bad.
God bless
N
NormalBeliever
Guest
As I mentioned in one of my comments above, the person who asked was an anonymous asker, so it was only answered once.
J
jjr9
Guest
N
NormalBeliever
Guest
That happened last year.
- Status