How should we deal with the Homosexual dilemma?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dennisknapp
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dennisknapp

Guest
I posted this on another thread but got no response. I would really like to know the answer to this.

Here is the dilemma:

Is it a sin to commit a homosexual act? Yes it is. Where do we see this? We see this in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

If this is the case then it follows:
  1. Two men publically declare that they are in a homosexual relationship (which means intimate relations).
  2. It is a mortal sin according the Catholic teaching to commit a homosexual act.
  3. Mortal sin leds to eternal death according to Catholic teaching regardin sin.
  4. We as Christ’s followers are called to spread the Good News that He has conquered sin and death. We are to tell the world that sin need no longer reign in their lives, and they do not have to die eternally.
  5. These men are dying eternally by willfully committing homosexual acts and need to be warned of the consequences of their actions, before it is too late.
  6. By not telling them of their danger we are willfully allowing them to die in their sins and suffer eternally.
  7. Therefore, we must do all in our power (in love) to help them avoid what the Church says awaits those who die in their sins. For, is not love desiring the utmost best for the sake of the beloved?
But, many tell us that it is not loving, and we are intolerant, if we do not accept Homosexuals the way they are.

What do you think?

Peace
 
40.png
dennisknapp:
I posted this on another thread but got no response. I would really like to know the answer to this.

Here is the dilemma:

Is it a sin to commit a homosexual act? Yes it is. Where do we see this? We see this in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium.

If this is the case then it follows:
  1. Two men publically declare that they are in a homosexual relationship (which means intimate relations).
  2. It is a mortal sin according the Catholic teaching to commit a homosexual act.
  3. Mortal sin leds to eternal death according to Catholic teaching regardin sin.
  4. We as Christ’s followers are called to spread the Good News that He has conquered sin and death. We are to tell the world that sin need no longer reign in their lives, and they do not have to die eternally.
  5. These men are dying eternally by willfully committing homosexual acts and need to be warned of the consequences of their actions, before it is too late.
  6. By not telling them of their danger we are willfully allowing them to die in their sins and suffer eternally.
  7. Therefore, we must do all in our power (in love) to help them avoid what the Church says awaits those who die in their sins. For, is not love desiring the utmost best for the sake of the beloved?
But, many tell us that it is not loving, and we are intolerant, if we do not accept Homosexuals the way they are.

What do you think?

Peace
Click to expand...
Mortal sin is mortal sin. “Love the sinner and hate the sin,” do not accept the sin. Would there be a question as to how a Catholic should respond to a person who shoplifts? No. Why? Because society still sees the shoplifter as a criminal as opposed to a homosexual who is viewed as simply having “a different lifestyle.” Don’t let society dictate morality else we’re all in trouble. Opps, too late.:eek: Society is already calling good evil and evil good. As Catholics, we’re not to become entangled in that trap.
God bless.
 
We see a neighbor clearly and obstinately in sin, we lovingly try the following:


  1. *]Confront individually
    *]If (1) fails, confront with a another person of like mind
    *] If (2) fails, confront with the church community
    *]If that fails, punt. Ignore/avoid the person as much as possible.

    This applies to ANYONE. Not just homosexuals.
 
Unless they are hermits in the woods and have no contact with the outside world, I would be willing to bet that they have already been made aware that homosexual acts are sins. It’s been my observation that most homosexuals are members of the ‘intellectually elite’ (I am stereotyping, but it’s an observation not a fact) and have been able to distinguish right and wrong but have subscribed to the theories of Moral Relativism and believe that they are ‘basically good people’.

It is a dilemma, but I’m not afraid to be considered a ‘homophobic, right-wing religious zealot’. Mention it to them, then the ball is in their court - so to speak.

SG
 
We are responsible for lovingly admonishing the sinner and helping them grow in faith. You asked about mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal it must meet the criteria for mortal sin:


  1. *]A grave matter such as homo or heterosexual activity outside the boundries of holy matrimony between a male and female.
    *]It is committed with full knowledge that it is a sinful act. Some people are ignorant of the laws. Others are intentionally ignorant, not wanting to know or accept sin. The commandments are written in our hearts; therefore, all of us have some intrinsic knowledge of right and wrong. Thus, everyone has some responsibility for knowing.
    *]Knowing it is sinful the person chooses of his/her free will to do it anyway. The promptings of passion and pathological diorders can deminish the voluntary and free character of the offense. This may deminish the severity of the sin.

    For those who knowingly reject God for the sake of satisfying selfish passions, I pray for God’s mercy!
 

For those who knowingly reject God for the sake of satisfying selfish passions, I pray for God’s mercy!​

Sounds like the people who believe in ostrasizing children…
 
40.png
Lilyofthevalley:

For those who knowingly reject God for the sake of satisfying selfish passions, I pray for God’s mercy!​

Sounds like the people who believe in ostrasizing children…
Click to expand...
How do you figure?
 
You cannot and must not be afraid of criticism or ridicule when you know you are in the right. Homosexuality is wrong - period, so develop strong and sound arguments against it and speak out often.

Now we have no control over our own country in a democracy, so we are limited to what we can control. It is imperative that there be no homosexuals at all in the Catholic Priesthood. Married Priests are not going to prevent homosexual infiltration into the Priesthood anymore than married sailors have prevented homosexual infiltration of the Navy. The Church simply must enforce that already existing rules against homosexual ordination.
 
Hi guys!

To me it seems obvious that if we believe something to be a sin that we possess an obligation to attempt to correct those who engage in it. For me this raises two further questions: First, what form should the correction take? Second, in the case of a homosexual, what is the point?

Considering the first question we have to ask ourselves what is the method of correction which would bear the most fruit, or help the sinner to realize his error and correct it. It seems to me that if we attach man-made (and therefore imperfect) temporal consequences to every type of sin as our primary evangelistic tool that we run the risk of driving the sinner even further away. If, however, we involve ourselves with them in such a way as to expose them to a genuinely Christian atmosphere, while maintaining our firm position against the sin, we run the risk of having the sinner assume tolerance for the sin and continue to engage in it.

Now it seems to me that the second approach may be the preferable one, for it gives the sinner an opportunity to let go of any prejudices he may harbor and it also gives the Christian an opportunity to exercise the virtue of patience rather than to seek the immediate gratification of an instant and total conversion which is really an unrealistic expectation, in most cases. It also avoids the risk of driving the sinner away and deeper into his own sin, which is a far graver situation.

In the case of the homosexual, we have what appears to be an extremely unusual type of sin. We have been discussing on several other threads the possibility of denying the homosexual the sacrament of Holy Orders because even if sexual sin has not been engaged in yet, forum participants overwhelmingly agree that chastity is not something that the homosexual is capable of maintaining. It therefore seems to me that the homosexual is doomed to sin regardless of whether he wears the Roman collar. Thus, we are talking about a person who is constitutively unable to give up the sin we are to admonish him for.

The homosexual condition has been compared in several threads to conditions such as psychotic dementia, sexual predation, cannibalism, and homicidal ideation. None of this has been challenged by an orthodox poster, so I am left to conclude that the homosexual is an especially dangerous type of person. The Christian who gets near to one, unsupervised, puts himself at an unacceptable level of peril.

Currently, the Church teaches that the condition of being sexually attracted to members of one’s own sex is not sinful in and of itself. This teaching is clearly false. The Church teaches that a sin must be both objectively evil and freely chosen. Considering the fact that reparative therapy is available, and that the Church has modified the Catechism to strike the notion that the homosexual condition is not chosen, it is apparent that the condition itself, even if never expressed is sinful. The individual who dies with a homosexual orientation, even if never expressed, dies in sin and therefore dies eternally.

The way a Christian is called to deal with a homosexual must be very different from the way a Christian would have to deal with any other type of sinner. In this case, the Christian must put his own safety and the safety of the community before the welfare of the homosexual. Logically, it is not unreasonable to question whether the homosexual is even capable of salvation.
 
Kevin Walker:
You cannot and must not be afraid of criticism or ridicule when you know you are in the right. Homosexuality is wrong - period, so develop strong and sound arguments against it and speak out often.

Now we have no control over our own country in a democracy, so we are limited to what we can control. It is imperative that there be no homosexuals at all in the Catholic Priesthood. Married Priests are not going to prevent homosexual infiltration into the Priesthood anymore than married sailors have prevented homosexual infiltration of the Navy. The Church simply must enforce that already existing rules against homosexual ordination.
Click to expand...
Homosexual acts are wrong, homosexual people have to bear the croos of celibacy and chastity. The Church even recognizes that some people are inclined to homosexual acts and calls these people to be more disciplined than others.

Remember the quote “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

SG
 
Other Eric:
Hi guys!

To me it seems obvious that if we believe something to be a sin that we possess an obligation to attempt to correct those who engage in it. For me this raises two further questions: First, what form should the correction take? Second, in the case of a homosexual, what is the point?

Considering the first question we have to ask ourselves what is the method of correction which would bear the most fruit, or help the sinner to realize his error and correct it. It seems to me that if we attach man-made (and therefore imperfect) temporal consequences to every type of sin as our primary evangelistic tool that we run the risk of driving the sinner even further away. If, however, we involve ourselves with them in such a way as to expose them to a genuinely Christian atmosphere, while maintaining our firm position against the sin, we run the risk of having the sinner assume tolerance for the sin and continue to engage in it.

Now it seems to me that the second approach may be the preferable one, for it gives the sinner an opportunity to let go of any prejudices he may harbor and it also gives the Christian an opportunity to exercise the virtue of patience rather than to seek the immediate gratification of an instant and total conversion which is really an unrealistic expectation, in most cases. It also avoids the risk of driving the sinner away and deeper into his own sin, which is a far graver situation.
Click to expand...
Eric, You make some excellent points but if the homosexual is very deep into their sin (many sexual partners, different forms of deviant sexual activites to fulfill their desires, etc.) how long or how often do Christians need to expose themselves to to the homosexual lifestyle in the hopes of a conversion?
Other Eric:
In the case of the homosexual, we have what appears to be an extremely unusual type of sin. We have been discussing on several other threads the possibility of denying the homosexual the sacrament of Holy Orders because even if sexual sin has not been engaged in yet, forum participants overwhelmingly agree that chastity is not something that the homosexual is capable of maintaining. It therefore seems to me that the homosexual is doomed to sin regardless of whether he wears the Roman collar. Thus, we are talking about a person who is constitutively unable to give up the sin we are to admonish him for.
Click to expand...
It’s unfortunate that the priest sexual abuse scandal has tainted homosexuals as not being suitable for the priesthood. I am sure there are have been and are now some good Holy priests who happen to have a homosexual orientation but have never once acted on it and maybe never will but those few bad apples (priests who have abused boys) have spoiled the whole barrel in the minds of many. And then there is that document that came from the Vatican regarding this issue.
Other Eric:
The homosexual condition has been compared in several threads to conditions such as psychotic dementia, sexual predation, cannibalism, and homicidal ideation. None of this has been challenged by an orthodox poster, so I am left to conclude that the homosexual is an especially dangerous type of person. The Christian who gets near to one, unsupervised, puts himself at an unacceptable level of peril.
Click to expand...
Not every Christian believes these things. I have some very good friends who are homosexual. However, One of my best friends of 20 years who is an active homosexual male was in the habit of sharing his sexual experiences with me and flaunting his lifestyle around me. I have had to distant myself from him. I still love him very much, I still talk to him on the phone it is just hard for me to see him living this sinful lifestyle. He seems to sink deeper and deeper in sin. I was too stressed out from trying to get him to see that his lifestyle was not healthy spiritually or physically. I think the best thing for me to do is to pray for him.

continued on next post
 
Other Eric:
In the case of the homosexual, we have what appears to be an extremely unusual type of sin. We have been discussing on several other threads the possibility of denying the homosexual the sacrament of Holy Orders because even if sexual sin has not been engaged in yet, forum participants overwhelmingly agree that chastity is not something that the homosexual is capable of maintaining. It therefore seems to me that the homosexual is doomed to sin regardless of whether he wears the Roman collar. Thus, we are talking about a person who is constitutively unable to give up the sin we are to admonish him for.

The homosexual condition has been compared in several threads to conditions such as psychotic dementia, sexual predation, cannibalism, and homicidal ideation. None of this has been challenged by an orthodox poster, so I am left to conclude that the homosexual is an especially dangerous type of person. The Christian who gets near to one, unsupervised, puts himself at an unacceptable level of peril.

Currently, the Church teaches that the condition of being sexually attracted to members of one’s own sex is not sinful in and of itself. This teaching is clearly false. The Church teaches that a sin must be both objectively evil and freely chosen. Considering the fact that reparative therapy is available, and that the Church has modified the Catechism to strike the notion that the homosexual condition is not chosen, it is apparent that the condition itself, even if never expressed is sinful. The individual who dies with a homosexual orientation, even if never expressed, dies in sin and therefore dies eternally.

The way a Christian is called to deal with a homosexual must be very different from the way a Christian would have to deal with any other type of sinner. In this case, the Christian must put his own safety and the safety of the community before the welfare of the homosexual. Logically, it is not unreasonable to question whether the homosexual is even capable of salvation.
Click to expand...
Explain then the scientific fact that homosexual share a common gene, that heterosexuals do not have. Does God create a sinful being? Or is the natural human condition is grace in which humanity failed in Adam & Eve. By your very argument you are condemning people to hell without the chance for salvation and that is inherently wrong. What is your sin? What do you struggle with? Do you ever stop? Does it still happen? Homosexual sin is no different than any other sexual sin outside the bonds of marriage. The Church is wrong about granting homosexuals a chance at salvation? That violates everything Jesus has offered us in salvation. That is a completely false argument. As far as not allowing homosexuals into the priesthood - is this because you think pedophiles are always homosexuals? There are pedophiles that are attracted to female victims only. There are female perpetrators to pedophilia and have males as victims. And would you be shocked to know that the vast majority of pedophiles are men that are married with children and identify themselves as heterosexuals?

Of course the truth of the matter is that a homosexual that never acts on those impulses will never reveal themselves to us. Maybe that is the real fear the proponents of homosexual priests are bothered by it.
 
Other Eric:
Hi guys!

Currently, the Church teaches that the condition of being sexually attracted to members of one’s own sex is not sinful in and of itself. This teaching is clearly false. The Church teaches that a sin must be both objectively evil and freely chosen. Considering the fact that reparative therapy is available, and that the Church has modified the Catechism to strike the notion that the homosexual condition is not chosen, it is apparent that the condition itself, even if never expressed is sinful. The individual who dies with a homosexual orientation, even if never expressed, dies in sin and therefore dies eternally.

The way a Christian is called to deal with a homosexual must be very different from the way a Christian would have to deal with any other type of sinner. In this case, the Christian must put his own safety and the safety of the community before the welfare of the homosexual. Logically, it is not unreasonable to question whether the homosexual is even capable of salvation.
Click to expand...
**
Every soul is capable of salvation**
 
GloriaPatri4 said:
**
Every soul is capable of salvation**
Click to expand...

Hi GloriaPatri4!
Code: 
Look, I understand the teaching that every soul is said to be capable of salvation. Let us, however, consider the case of the homosexual once again:

  1. *] Sexual acts between members of the same gender are sinful
    *] God calls homosexuals (and everyone else) to chastity
    *] Homosexuals must be banned from the priesthood because, among other things, they are, at some constitutive level, incapable of chastity
    *] The psychological nature of the homosexual condition, alluded to in several posts, has emphatically not been defined by the Church in such a way as to remove culpability from the homosexual for sexual sin

    So, we have constructed a situation in which we define a homosexual as incapable of following his chaste calling and yet, that he is still spiritually responsible for his failure. Given this line of reasoning, how is the homosexual capable of salvation? The Church has not revealed any spiritual mystery here, so the solution must be within the bounds of human reason to discover.
 
Other Eric:
God calls homosexuals (and everyone else) to chastity
Click to expand...
Do me a favor, so I can understand your reason - answer these questions?

Is a heterosexual someone who is attracted to someone of the other sex or HAS sex with someone of the other sex? Is a homosexual someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex or HAS sex with someone of the same sex?

It seems to me as if you are stating that even heterosexuals are incapable of slavation because they are held to the same moral standard as homosexuals. I am having a hard time understanding your argument that a homosexual cannot live a chaste life. If a homosexual is incapable of living a sin free life then you are saying that God has created people that are doomed from the start. This violates all our beliefs, because God creates people with the ability to follow and obey Him.
 
Other Eric,

here are some of the teachings from the CCC on homosexuality and homosexuals. The Church still teaches that a homosexual can still receive grace…grace is a predecessor to salvation, is it not?

referring to homosexual ACTS
#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.

The Church refers to Christians - as a Christian, there is a sense of slavation attached to it
#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.

Here is where it states that homosexuals can obtain salvation
#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.
I’m still not seeing where the Church is condemning the homosexual…
 
Hi Seeks God!
Code: 
  I understand your confusion over the way I use the term “homosexual.” It’s a rather inaccurate shorthand that I use as I find it cumbersome to type “person with same-sex attractions” over and over. Let’s define a homosexual as a person who has an attraction to members of his own gender but does not necessarily act upon them. We will refer to the type of homosexual who does act upon his temptations as “gay.” That should suffice for the purposes of this thread.

  I will now consider the question of chastity in the life of the homosexual. I admit that it is the weakest part of my argument but it is, nevertheless, one that the Church apparently believes herself, being poised, as she is, to deny Holy Orders to the homosexual irrespective of a chaste life. The argument is that putting such an individual into a society composed solely of members of his own gender constitutes an objective near occasion of sin that it would be uncharitable to ask the homosexual to deal with and that it is a test he is likely to fail. Given this reasoning, the Church’s own Courage ministry ought to be disbanded as well as it puts the homosexual into close contact with those who are predisposed to the exact same disorder he is. This leaves the homosexual adrift in our hyper-sexualized society with temptation on every TV channel, billboard and movie screen. There is no place the homosexual can go where he is not safe from the near occasions of sin that the Church believes, in their argument to keep him from Holy Orders, that he will eventually succumb to.

  This creates, as you have pointed out, a rather cruel paradox and I would be most pleased if you could find a solution to it that did not require the damnation of every homosexual soul.
 
Other Eric:
I will now consider the question of chastity in the life of the homosexual. I admit that it is the weakest part of my argument but it is, nevertheless, one that the Church apparently believes herself, being poised, as she is, to deny Holy Orders to the homosexual irrespective of a chaste life. The argument is that putting such an individual into a society composed solely of members of his own gender constitutes an objective near occasion of sin that it would be uncharitable to ask the homosexual to deal with and that it is a test he is likely to fail. Given this reasoning, the Church’s own Courage ministry ought to be disbanded as well as it puts the homosexual into close contact with those who are predisposed to the exact same disorder he is. This leaves the homosexual adrift in our hyper-sexualized society with temptation on every TV channel, billboard and movie screen. There is no place the homosexual can go where he is not safe from the near occasions of sin that the Church believes, in their argument to keep him from Holy Orders, that he will eventually succumb to.

This creates, as you have pointed out, a rather cruel paradox and I would be most pleased if you could find a solution to it that did not require the damnation of every homosexual soul.
Click to expand...
Wow! Now that was a compelling argument! I thought about it in a different way, though the ‘jury is still out’ for me: Since a priest’s relationship to his parish is supposed to represent the relationship Jesus has with His Church, then a priest is supposed to fulfill a fatherly/husbandly (as if those are words) role. A homosexual male can NEVER experience that same role, therefore cannot be a priest. What I wonder about, however, is the role of vocation in the homosexual’s life. It is obvious they can never marry, so doesn’t it only folloow that they can have the vocation of Holy Orders?

I just can not accept a notion that they are doomed to hell, before they get the chance for salvation. It seems to violate God’s very plan for humanity…
 
Seeks God:
It is obvious they can never marry, so doesn’t it only folloow that they can have the vocation of Holy Orders?
Click to expand...
Hi Seeks God!

No, it does not follow that the homosexual is left only wih a vocation to Holy Orders if he cannot marry. He could have a vocation to be single.
 
Other Eric:
Hi Seeks God!

No, it does not follow that the homosexual is left only wih a vocation to Holy Orders if he cannot marry. He could have a vocation to be single.
Click to expand...
Can the homosexual still obtain salvation, though?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top