How can I explain that homosexuality is wrong to a gay man?

[Voco_proTatiano]

Can you give me the specific verse where Our Lord says homosexual relations are morally acceptable?

You quote me grossly out of context.
I referred to Our Lord’s words, saying:
Judge not that you be not judged.
You can find the quote at:
Mt. 7:1 Judge not, that you may not be judged.
Lk. 6:37 Judge not: and you shall not be judged.
Condemn not: and you shall not be condemned.
Forgive: and you shall be forgiven.

The subject of the judgement is left open, thus is not limited, and so is universal, covering all offences. Though it is clear that from context, this command is aimed at offences which do no harm to the person inclined to judge, for it is clear that there is, in place, mechanism for settling grievance, which we find elsewhere in the Gospel(s).

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So, the authority in moral issues is science? If science claims it is “normal” that some are cannibals would that justify breaking the natural moral law?

Actually, science on the whole, backs moral laws.
For instance, it is recognised as dangerous to eat the meat of near specie animals, as the risk of CJD is grossly enhanced thereby. This was the primary cause of ‘mad-cow-disease’. Cattle were fed meal made from waste cattle meat!
One has to ask, though: in extremis, is it sinful to eat the flesh of a dead human, if that is the only way to avoid fatal starvation, as it the aircraft crash incident that occurred in the Andes? The lives of some survivors were thereby saved, but they bear grave guilt, for they were forced to break a deep-seated taboo, by unforgiving circumstances.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Can you give me the specific verse where Our Lord says homosexual relations are morally acceptable?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:8-11

8 We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, 9 with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers,
10 the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Emphasis on the word practicing, it is not a sin to be homosexual, only to be a practicing homosexual.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Why do you believe the Gospel?

Why do you ask?
Do you find it so strange?
I do find the Gospel(s) to be internally consistant, which is more than can be said for the rest of the scriptures.
My work in translating the harmonised Latin Gospel has shown that so-called inconsistancies are the result of misunderstandings of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin idioms. The compiler of the Harmony has understood most of these, and modelled his text to give the correct interpretation of them, though, some he missed.

 

[setter]

Left-handedness is no less a disorder than SSA.
I have accepted that.
That is not what I was claiming. I was merely stating the obvious, that disorderedness was not necessarily sinful.

SSA is a moral disorder, because the only expression of this disordered desire is gravely sinful. This is not the case with all other disorders.

I am not attacking the Church, nor either the Pope.
I am suggesting that the judgement they have come to was based on incomplete evidence, as much of this knowledge is relatively new.
My assertion is that; provided that the disordered behaviour, resulting from their disordered psyches, is kept within the bounds of the inner society of those with likewise disordered psyches, then no harm is done, so if there be sin, then it is venial.
But the bottom line is;
provided no harm is done, judgement should be left to GOD.

So as long as the sin is “private and confidential” with like minded and similarly afflicted individuals, there is no harm done and the sin is only venial? This is a highly subjective and arbitrary basis for establishing norms for morality. Your “provided no harm is done” version of utilitarianism is inconsistent with the objective standards and norms of morality based absolutism. Natural moral law in unchangeable.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

1 Timothy 1:8-11

Emphasis on the word practicing, it is not a sin to be homosexual, only to be a practicing homosexual.

You quote the tent maker, I quote Our Lord.
You seem to value your tent maker more highly than Our Lord.
I do not share that position.

 

[setter]

You quote the tent maker, I quote Our Lord.
You seem to value your tent maker more highly than Our Lord.
I do not share that position.

Do you believe that scripture is the inspired word of God? If so, is it not internally consistent?

 

[fix]

Actually, science on the whole, backs moral laws.
For instance, it is recognised as dangerous to eat the meat of near specie animals, as the risk of CJD is grossly enhanced thereby. This was the primary cause of ‘mad-cow-disease’. Cattle were fed meal made from waste cattle meat!
One has to ask, though: in extremis, is it sinful to eat the flesh of a dead human, if that is the only way to avoid fatal starvation, as it the aircraft crash incident that occurred in the Andes? The lives of some survivors were thereby saved, but they bear grave guilt, for they were forced to break a deep-seated taboo, by unforgiving circumstances.

Legitimate science is consistent with moral law. Illegitimate science, or advocacy based science, is another matter.

It seems you reject the truth that some acts are intrinsically evil. They may never be done. Homsexual acts ,whether a genetic defect or not, are wrong. We know they are wrong from the natural moral law which is given by God and interpreted with great help by the Church.

Now, you claim that science shows that such an attraction is part of normal variation and the Church is too slow to comprehend this “advancement”. The problem is the nature of man is not something science determines. Man is body and soul and has a God-given nature. That truth we undertsand from revelation, the natural law, and the guidance of the Church. If science claims man’s nature is something different than that we know that is untrue. Truth is unchanging. Science can only confirm what is true, not invent some other reality.

 

[EBSSTF4]

You quote the tent maker, I quote Our Lord.
You seem to value your tent maker more highly than Our Lord.
I do not share that position.

Do you also select what passages apply to you?

Catholics bevieve the bible, in its entirety is the inspired word of God. To only use the words of Jesus that were put in quotes by his Apostles, well after his death, discounts the validity of the book as a whole. In all the pages of the bible Jesus did not take up much space.

 

[fix]

Why do you ask?
Do you find it so strange?
I do find the Gospel(s) to be internally consistant, which is more than can be said for the rest of the scriptures.
My work in translating the harmonised Latin Gospel has shown that so-called inconsistancies are the result of misunderstandings of Hebrew, Greek, and Latin idioms. The compiler of the Harmony has understood most of these, and modelled his text to give the correct interpretation of them, though, some he missed.

I find it strange you accept the Gospel, yet reject the Church? How is it you have an authority greater than His Church He speaks through?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

SSA is a moral disorder, because the only expression of this disordered desire is gravely sinful. This is not the case with all other disorders.

NO, this is NOT a moral disorder, it is a PHYSICAL disorder in the detailed set-up of the aflicted brain, and so psyche.

Actually, Our Lord said that whosoever looked upon another with desire, has already committed adultery. The physical act is not an essential part of the sin.

Mt. 5:27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Mt. 5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So as long as the sin is “private and confidential” with like minded and similarly afflicted individuals, there is no harm done and the sin is only venial? This is a highly subjective and arbitrary basis for establishing norms for morality. Your “provided no harm is done” version of utilitarianism is inconsistent with the objective standards and norms of morality based absolutism. Natural moral law in unchangeable.

NO, I was maintaining that it is unreasonable, and un-natural to expect a person with an abnormal psyche to behave in a normal manner, and that provided that this abnormal behaviour was not damaging, that it should not be considered a serious matter.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Do you also select what passages apply to you?

Catholics bevieve the bible, in its entirety is the inspired word of God. To only use the words of Jesus that were put in quotes by his Apostles, well after his death, discounts the validity of the book as a whole. In all the pages of the bible Jesus did not take up much space.

The verbatim recorded by Matthew is a contemporaneous record, written down by a trained scribe, (publican and tax collector/civil servant). Luke also uses these contemporaneous notes recorded by Matthew in his Gospel.
As I said before, you choose to make the words of Our Lord inferior to those of his servant.
I choose differently.

 

[EBSSTF4]

NO, this is NOT a moral disorder, it is a PHYSICAL disorder in the detailed set-up of the aflicted brain, and so psyche.

Actually, Our Lord said that whosoever looked upon another with desire, has already committed adultery. The physical act is not an essential part of the sin.

Mt. 5:27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Mt. 5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

NO, I was maintaining that it is unreasonable, and un-natural to expect a person with an abnormal psyche to behave in a normal manner, and that provided that this abnormal behaviour was not damaging, that it should not be considered a serious matter.

The question is then intent. If you intend to commit adultery it is a Mortal Sin. If you lust, with no control over the feeling, and no intent to act on it, it would be a Venial Sin at best. To have homosexual desires would not be a sin. To act on them would be.

CCC

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Do you believe that scripture is the inspired word of God? If so, is it not internally consistent?

Actually, according to my understanding of the position of the Church, only the ORIGINAL scriptures are the inspired word of GOD.
Unfortuneately, due to various stages of translation and copying, simple errors have been made, and scribal notes have been embodied into the text.
It can be very difficult, other than by context to isolate and remove these additions, or correct these errors.
However, because of the triple source of much of the Gospel, cross-referring can, and has corrected many of the errors. This method cannot be applied to the rest of the scripture. Hence the Gospel is far more reliable as a self consistant record than is any othe part of the scripture.
This is a scientific analysis, and not, like yours, a matter of faith.
Faith, I do not denigrate, indeed, I covet your faith, but I am called to science, and through science, called to the Gospel.

 

[EBSSTF4]

The verbatim recorded by Matthew is a contemporaneous record, written down by a trained scribe, (publican and tax collector/civil servant). Luke also uses these contemporaneous notes recorded by Matthew in his Gospel.
As I said before, you choose to make the words of Our Lord inferior to those of his servant.
I choose differently.

I hate to show my ignorance on this matter but I do not recall reading about verbatim records of what Jesus said. I believed the first recorded records were from several years after his death. Could you please site your source?

Matthew 6:18

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Again as a self proclaimed Heretic it seems you ignore the intention of Jesus and the church he founded through his Apostles. I guess if you can pick and choose what to believe it makes simpler reading.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Actually, according to my understanding of the position of the Church, only the ORIGINAL scriptures are the inspired word of GOD.Unfortuneately, due to various stages of translation and copying, simple errors have been made, and scribal notes have been embodied into the text.
It can be very difficult, other than by context to isolate and remove these additions, or correct these errors.
However, because of the triple source of much of the Gospel, cross-referring can, and has corrected many of the errors. This method cannot be applied to the rest of the scripture. Hence the Gospel is far more reliable as a self consistant record than is any othe part of the scripture.
This is a scientific analysis, and not, like yours, a matter of faith.
Faith, I do not denigrate, indeed, I covet your faith, but I am called to science, and through science, called to the Gospel.

not really

CCC

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

It sounds like a weak excuse to blame the translations with all the available versions to read. The Ideas are clear, and of course the Catechism is an excellent reference when doubts arise to any belief of the church.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Legitimate science is consistent with moral law. Illegitimate science, or advocacy based science, is another matter.

It seems you reject the truth that some acts are intrinsically evil. They may never be done. Homsexual acts ,whether a genetic defect or not, are wrong. We know they are wrong from the natural moral law which is given by God and interpreted with great help by the Church.

You are speaking from faith, I am speaking from science.
You may comfort yourself that by adhering to the homosexual behaviour delineated by their abnormal psyches, the unfortunate afflicted ones are abstaining from procreating their defective genotype. This is actually a behaviour patern which is beneficial to mankind.

Now, you claim that science shows that such an attraction is part of normal variation and the Church is too slow to comprehend this “advancement”.

Normal variation is not necessarily advancement. It is a calumny to so suggest. Variation is caused by genetic errors. The vast majority of such errors have a negative survival value. Insisting that homosexuals follow a normal life-style, negates the negative survival value of this defect. Permitting, even encouraging their ‘natural’ life-style has the positive effect of removing the genetic error from the gene-pool, hence it should not be discouraged, indeed, that was the intent of the OT, and Koranic teaching, isolating them from the normal population.

The problem is the nature of man is not something science determines. Man is body and soul and has a God-given nature. That truth we undertsand from revelation, the natural law, and the guidance of the Church. If science claims man’s nature is something different than that we know that is untrue. Truth is unchanging. Science can only confirm what is true, not invent some other reality.

This last paragraph shows the position of faith.
It is not for me to criticise that position.
I can only say: it is not my position.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Do you also select what passages apply to you?

Catholics bevieve the bible, in its entirety is the inspired word of God. To only use the words of Jesus that were put in quotes by his Apostles, well after his death, discounts the validity of the book as a whole. In all the pages of the bible Jesus did not take up much space.

Out of your own mouth…
Clearly you value Our Lord very little.

 

[EBSSTF4]

Out of your own mouth…
Clearly you value Our Lord very little.

Every word in the bible was guided by his hand through the Holy Spirit, are you familiar with the Holy Trinity?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I hate to show my ignorance on this matter but I do not recall reading about verbatim records of what Jesus said. I believed the first recorded records were from several years after his death. Could you please site your source?

Read Matthew again, very carefully, and note how the account crystalises in detail following the calling of Matthew.
Before that point, Matthew is writing hear-say, afterwards, he is writing witness.
He was a scribe, a civil servant, a record keeper, and tax collector.
He is our verbatim recorder.
He is a reliable witness.
His random scribblings, which he later assembled into his Gospel are referred to by others as ‘Q’.

Matthew 6:18

Again as a self proclaimed Heretic it seems you ignore the intention of Jesus and the church he founded through his Apostles. I guess if you can pick and choose what to believe it makes simpler reading.