How much longer before the Church recognizes a homosexual Saint?

[Michael_Allen]

Sodomy was in fact consider a vice any could fall to. Before the Victorian era friendship was considered the highest love. In England for example it was perfectly it was perfectly acceptable for men to cuddle in the same bed and write love letters to each other even after sodomy laws were put in place. The terms heterosexuality and homosexuality don’t make sense for a time when people seeking love in same sex relationships is normal and praiseworthy, while sex is only for the opposite sex.

I’m not sure about you, but something the term ‘sodomy’ seems to lack to me is any recognition of mutually supportive and loving same-sex relationships. Sodomy would appear to describe a purely sexual act outside of any context of loving relationship. And yet,as early as the Iliad (~800BC) we have the image of Achilles and Patroclus as a loving same-sex union of love. Similarly we have in history (~350BC) the relationship between Alexander the Great and and Hephaestion.

And so I think any thoughtful way of thinking about same-sex attraction and love must recognise that same-sex love has always existed alongside same-sex sex. If we talk just about love, or just about the physical act (‘sodomy’), then it seems we’re not recognising the fuller picture that we see in history and that we see around us today - love and sex may often (but not always) be intertwined. And if we can’t recognise and acknowledge that fuller picture, then doesn’t that point to something lacking in our thinking?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Don’t feed the activist troll. It’s all about control and responding means you’re playing the game.

Who are you talking about

Engaging with people who are clueless about Church teaching is a waste of time. Familiarize yourself with the truth. The Catholic Church is not a debating society and the agenda was always to separate and divide.
I don’t care if you find this uncharitable. It’s the truth and the fact is that same sex attraction (itself and not the individual) is wrong and the activities (all non procreative activities), including unions are not acceptable. Check Pope Francis recent exhortation to confirm this

Do you also think evangelism is a waste of time?

Same sex sexual attraction is objectively disordered because the object of said attraction is intrinsically disordered.

I’m not sure about you, but something the term ‘sodomy’ seems to lack to me is any recognition of mutually supportive and loving same-sex relationships. Sodomy would appear to describe a purely sexual act outside of any context of loving relationship. And yet,as early as the Iliad (~800BC) we have the image of Achilles and Patroclus as a loving same-sex union of love. Similarly we have in history (~350BC) the relationship between Alexander the Great and and Hephaestion.

And so I think any thoughtful way of thinking about same-sex attraction and love must recognise that same-sex love has always existed alongside same-sex sex. If we talk just about love, or just about the physical act (‘sodomy’), then it seems we’re not recognising the fuller picture that we see in history and that we see around us today - love and sex may often (but not always) be intertwined. And if we can’t recognise and acknowledge that fuller picture, then doesn’t that point to something lacking in our thinking?

In Catholic theology whether sodomy is done in casual sex or between a couple which has been together for thirty years doesn’t matter, gay sex is still wrong. The position cannot change though the perspective could hypothetically shift just as the view on suicide has shifted. Two hundred years ago people who committed suicide were always denied a Catholic funeral, now however with our greater understanding of mental illness and how it can affect culpability we do bury people who have committed suicide though the Church teaching the suicide is sinful and a grave matter does not change. That said do not count on any such shift in perspective.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Thanks for your replies. As you can imagine I didn’t read them because you aren’t familiar with the Catechism. There is no debate or discussion until you understand Church teaching and if you accept it stay in the Church. If you reject it, leave.

It’s. That. Simple.
ttfn

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Thanks for your replies. As you can imagine I didn’t read them because you aren’t familiar with the Catechism. There is no debate or discussion until you understand Church teaching and if you accept it stay in the Church. If you reject it, leave.

It’s. That. Simple.
ttfn

Please explain why you think I am unfamiliar with the Catechism and where you think what I have said contradicts it.

 

[powerofk]

Please explain why you think I am unfamiliar with the Catechism and where you think what I have said contradicts it.

See, I’ve read your responses, and I have to say that they appear to have no contradiction to the Catechism.

By the way, the catechism states that homosexual attractions are gravely disordered, but that the number of people who suffer from such attraction is not negligible. It is a cross they have to bear, but they should be treated with the same dignity as all persons.

Attraction, in and of itself, is not a sin. It is a temptation to sin. Acting on the temptation is a sin.

Now, as for a saint that people suffering from same sex attractions should pray to, I’d start with St. Augustine. Now there is no evidence that he had homosexual relations - but before his conversion he fell victim to many sins of the flesh.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

See, I’ve read your responses, and I have to say that they appear to have no contradiction to the Catechism.

By the way, the catechism states that homosexual attractions are gravely disordered, but that the number of people who suffer from such attraction is not negligible. It is a cross they have to bear, but they should be treated with the same dignity as all persons.

Attraction, in and of itself, is not a sin. It is a temptation to sin. Acting on the temptation is a sin.

Now, as for a saint that people suffering from same sex attractions should pray to, I’d start with St. Augustine. Now there is no evidence that he had homosexual relations - but before his conversion he fell victim to many sins of the flesh.

Totally agree with all of this. There is no room for debate or “dialogue”. It’s a case of prayer and realisation that we are all sinners. However the One True Holy and Apostolic faith is perfect and should never compromise.

 

[Michael_Allen]

There is no room for debate or “dialogue”.

I respect the right of those who choose to withdraw from dialogue or debate on issues of faith. They are, of course, totally free to not dialogue.

But it does always seem worthwhile to me for people of differing views to dialogue, and even to debate (with good nature). At a minimum, through dialogue we can better understand why people may think differently - it can help takes religious views (from any background) out of abstract argument into the the messy but real world.

 

[Prodigal_40s]

I respect the right of those who choose to withdraw from dialogue or debate on issues of faith. They are, of course, totally free to not dialogue.

But it does always seem worthwhile to me for people of differing views to dialogue, and even to debate (with good nature). At a minimum, through dialogue we can better understand why people may think differently - it can help takes religious views (from any background) out of abstract argument into the the messy but real world.

“Dialogue” “real World”

Yep. That’s all contrary to absolute Truth.
Talking to people who have no intention of accepting Church teaching is fine but unless they accept the Truth and “respect” that it is their right to reject it, there is no point in “dialogue”.
There are now 30,000 variations of the Christian faith thanks to “talking” constantly. That covers their “religious views” but might not so they’ll want to talk further. Let them

 

[RuthTherese]

Yep. That’s all contrary to absolute Truth.
Talking to people who have no intention of accepting Church teaching is fine but unless they accept the Truth and “respect” that it is their right to reject it, there is no point in “dialogue”.
There are now 30,000 variations of the Christian faith thanks to “talking” constantly. That covers their “religious views” but might not so they’ll want to talk further. Let them

True, but it can make it very frustrating for the person you’re talking to if you aren’t even willing to listen to their point of view long enough to explain why it’s contrary to Church teaching. I personally find “It’s this way because the Church says it’s this way, end of story” to be incredibly aggravating.

 

[at9009]

“Dialogue” “real World”

Yep. That’s all contrary to absolute Truth.
Talking to people who have no intention of accepting Church teaching is fine but unless they accept the Truth and “respect” that it is their right to reject it, there is no point in “dialogue”.
There are now 30,000 variations of the Christian faith thanks to “talking” constantly. That covers their “religious views” but might not so they’ll want to talk further. Let them

Evangelization is far more effective when one actually is willing to listen to a person’s perspective and reasoning (even if it’s wrong). Then dialogue about what the Church teaches and go from there. You have no idea if they are unwilling to accept Church teaching until you actually are willing to talk with them. Sometimes we plant the seed that even the person is unaware of. By basically giving up and saying no, you are underestimating the power of the Gospel. Often these people haven’t heard the good news because often it hasn’t been explained well by other Christians (or have had bad experiences with other Christians who have been less than Christlike).

 

[Prodigal_40s]

True, but it can make it very frustrating for the person you’re talking to if you aren’t even willing to listen to their point of view long enough to explain why it’s contrary to Church teaching. I personally find “It’s this way because the Church says it’s this way, end of story” to be incredibly aggravating.

I don’t have to say anything. The Church is the bride of Christ and absolute truth. As for compromise, yep that’s going well in Western society. If you’re bored with this, then that’s your problem

Evangelization is far more effective when one actually is willing to listen to a person’s perspective and reasoning (even if it’s wrong). Then dialogue about what the Church teaches and go from there. You have no idea if they are unwilling to accept Church teaching until you actually are willing to talk with them. Sometimes we plant the seed that even the person is unaware of. By basically giving up and saying no, you are underestimating the power of the Gospel. Often these people haven’t heard the good news because often it hasn’t been explained well by other Christians (or have had bad experiences with other Christians who have been less than Christlike).

It wouldn’t be a conversation though. The Church teaches absolute Truth. I can see what’s gone wrong since the 1930’s with compromise and relative truth and it’ll only get worse unless we follow The One True Faith and yes, do inform but I’m not going to say “Oh maybe we should allow these people to marry” etc. Activists and apostates are winning in this regard and I aint going to help them

 

[at9009]

I don’t have to say anything. The Church is the bride of Christ and absolute truth. As for compromise, yep that’s going well in Western society. If you’re bored with this, then that’s your problem

It wouldn’t be a conversation though. The Church teaches absolute Truth. I can see what’s gone wrong since the 1930’s with compromise and relative truth and it’ll only get worse unless we follow The One True Faith and yes, do inform but I’m not going to say “Oh maybe we should allow these people to marry” etc. Activists and apostates are winning in this regard and I aint going to help them

Where did I say anywhere about compromising anywhere. Listening to someone’s story is not compromising the truth. You aren’t making much sense. If you aren’t willing to personally engage someone, you are not going to be able to reach them. But that is just my perspective (no where does that require you to throw Church teaching out).

 

[Kielbasi]

We sure need one. It would be nice for people with homosexual tendencies to have a saint as guide and who they can pray to for intercession.

Before the middle of the 19th Century, the idea that some people have a tendency or compulsion toward sodomy was really unknown.

The ideas of kleptomania, pyromania and alcoholism were really accepted either.

Not long enough for a saint to have a specific tale of how they dealt with and conquered this particular sin. Maybe in the future, we’ll see.

 

[RuthTherese]

If you’re bored with this, then that’s your problem.

Bored, not at all. Merely inquisitive and wishing to know the whys behind what the Church teaches. And further unimpressed when you’re telling me I shouldn’t question any of this because it is simply Truth. My goal in these discussions is not to prove myself right or wrong, but to understand.

 

[Mintaka]

Actually, I read a classics book that pointed out that the classical Greek men who had SSA did not actually engage in sodomy. They did, um, other stuff without much modern comparison. And of course, then SSA men thought that men with SSA should only be doing it with teenagers or boys. Doing it with someone your own age would be weird. And of course none of that had anything to do with your wife and kids, whom you would of course have; marriage was primarily duty for both sexes, although love and respect might be part of it.

So, no, these things are not the same throughout history.

Before the last hundred years, the closest you could probably get to the kind of saint story the OP was looking for is someone who was a former male sex slave or boy prostitute (catamite is the term), whom we would see as a child abuse survivor; or someone who had sex with boys or teenage boys and repented, whom we would see as a repentant pedophile. Maybe a former Cybele priest, whom we would see as a cult abuse survivor. You just don’t get today’s kinds of SSA culture appearing anywhere in the world, until the last hundred years or so.

 

[StudentMI]

Thanks for your replies. As you can imagine I didn’t read them because you aren’t familiar with the Catechism. There is no debate or discussion until you understand Church teaching and if you accept it stay in the Church. If you reject it, leave.

It’s. That. Simple.
ttfn

Quick! Someone inform Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and St. John Paul II and St. John XXIII etc… that their approach is wrong!

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Where did I say anywhere about compromising anywhere. Listening to someone’s story is not compromising the truth. You aren’t making much sense. If you aren’t willing to personally engage someone, you are not going to be able to reach them. But that is just my perspective (no where does that require you to throw Church teaching out).

I said the Church is the Truth. It is Logos and the Lord Jesus Christ is Logos incarnate.

Sorry if this is confusing

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Quick! Someone inform Pope Francis and Pope Benedict and St. John Paul II and St. John XXIII etc… that their approach is wrong!

If you read what the Pope said and didn’t listen to soundbites and nonsense, you’d understand that they never compromise either. Your sarcasm might be deemed “uncharitable” by you and your liberal mates but bring it on pal. I’m thick skinned

 

[Prodigal_40s]

Bored, not at all. Merely inquisitive and wishing to know the whys behind what the Church teaches. And further unimpressed when you’re telling me I shouldn’t question any of this because it is simply Truth. My goal in these discussions is not to prove myself right or wrong, but to understand.

Then I recommend you read the Catechism and a Catholic Bible (RSV). There’s no point in talking unless you know the Truth and accept it. You read it and then decide if you want to accept Catholicism. This is where you do your questioning yourself. Of course you can talk to people; that’s up to you but I found Catholicism by learning it and accepting Logos.
Opinions are very nebulous and largely based on a lack of knowledge.

 

[at9009]

I said the Church is the Truth. It is Logos and the Lord Jesus Christ is Logos incarnate.

Sorry if this is confusing

I agree with that. Hence why I am Catholic. What I don’t understand is your approach of basically not listening to people. It’s not compromising of the truth to listen to someone’s life story and perspective. Their perspective can still be wrong. However, if you aren’t even willing to listen them but rather just shout the Church is right from a distance, you aren’t going to convince a person. To do effective evangeization (in my opinion) it is helpful to develop a relationship with a person rather than to just disengage when they say views that you don’t agree with or are in confliction with Church teaching.

That is the part that is confusing. It feels like you are creating this false choice where one either only states the church teaching is true or listens and dialogues with a person which somehow affects the facts of church teaching being true. Is not a debate about what is true but rather your view on approach of spreading that truth that is what doesn’t make sense to me.