How to explain why homosexuality is sinful?

[josh987654321]

I have a friend who is homosexual. She knows that I don’t agree with it but I am always lost for words when she or someone else asks me why I believe homosexuality is sinful. I don’t want to sound cruel but I want to make sure I’m saying the right things in these debates. Any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. Thanks!

If they asked me I would probably say “I believe the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful, because it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.”

As for same sex attraction, I would say “I believe there is not one person who does not suffer from an immoral desire and our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.”

Hope I have helped

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Homosexuality is not sinful.

This needs to be emphasized. The opposite continues to be repeated. Homosexuality being sinful is the teaching of some non-Catholic churches but it isn’t the teaching of Catholic church.

Having sex with someone you’re not married to, however, is sinful. It doesn’t matter what the other person’s gender is.

The Church does not recognize the possibility of homosexual marriage, so it’s not possible for homosexuals to engage in sexual activity without incurring sin. But it’s not the gender - it’s the question of marriage.

A man and woman commit an equal sin by having sex outside marriage. There is no difference in the eyes of the Church.

This is similar to what say. I avoid singling out sins of homosexual nature as though it is the unforgivable sin. Self-righteous Christians love to clobber people who sin differently than they do.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

If they asked me I would probably say “I believe the sexual acts of homosexuality are sinful, because it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.”

This sounds charitable. I try to imagine how this comment would be received by someone who is gay.

As for same sex attraction, I would say “I believe there is not one person who does not suffer from an immoral desire and our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.”

Hope I have helped

Thank you for reading
Josh

The second comment starts out okay but then sounds like you think gay people chose who they are attracted to. I couldn’t desire another woman not matter how hard I tried so… We do chose whether or not we sin and maybe that’s what you are saying.

 

[josh987654321]

This sounds charitable. I try to imagine how this comment would be received by someone who is gay.

The second comment starts out okay but then sounds like you think gay people chose who they are attracted to. I couldn’t desire another woman not matter how hard I tried so… We do chose whether or not we sin and maybe that’s what you are saying.

Thank you for your reply Bruised Reed

I don’t mean to suggest that they chose their sexual orientation, I meant to suggest that those desires they have are not who they are, that homosexuals are no different to any one of us, that there is not one man or woman who does not suffer from an immoral desire of some kind, some more so than others and that these desires are not who we are because I believe we make the choice whether or not to act on them.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Catechism tells us that homosexuality is one of only 4 sins which “cries out to heaven” for vengeance.

Which Catechism? (do you really mean the 1649 Catechism?)
Since you cite the Catechism, would you be so kind as to provide an actual citation, and name the Catechism that you cite?

 

[DavidFilmer]

It does matter what the gender is. Having an affair with someone is sinful, fornication or adultery. Having homosexual sex is more grave a sin.

First of all, there is no such thing as a “more grave sin.” A sin is either mortal or venial. Mortal sin separates us from God. We cannot be “more” separated.

Second of all, you are speaking in an absurd manner. Would you care to establish your absurd statement in anything that even approaches Catholic Doctrine?

No??? Well, I did not expect anything.

 

[snowflakeinlove]

Homosexuality is not sinful.

Having sex with someone you’re not married to, however, is sinful. It doesn’t matter what the other person’s gender is.

The Church does not recognize the possibility of homosexual marriage, so it’s not possible for homosexuals to engage in sexual activity without incurring sin. But it’s not the gender - it’s the question of marriage.

A man and woman commit an equal sin by having sex outside marriage. There is no difference in the eyes of the Church.

As for same sex attraction, I would say “I believe there is not one person who does not suffer from an immoral desire and our desires are not who we are, because we make that choice.”

One thing to do is treat homosexual persons as you would treat anyone else. That I think is something they long for. Be respectfull but truthfull.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Here is the link to the in depth study of homosexual persons. Some very good points are made in these articles.

ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo.htm#Index

 

[TK421]

First of all, there is no such thing as a “more grave sin.” A sin is either mortal or venial. Mortal sin separates us from God. We cannot be “more” separated.

Second of all, you are speaking in an absurd manner. Would you care to establish your absurd statement in anything that even approaches Catholic Doctrine?

No??? Well, I did not expect anything.

I don’t understand why you would speak to her like that. Just ask her why she thinks that.

 

[buffalo]

Homosexuality and Hope

 

[dmar198]

ClearWater;11922392:

The Catechism tells us that homosexuality is one of only 4 sins which “cries out to heaven” for vengeance.

Which Catechism? (do you really mean the 1649 Catechism?)
Since you cite the Catechism, would you be so kind as to provide an actual citation, and name the Catechism that you cite?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church published by John Paul II in the early 1990s. CCC 1867 says: “The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are ‘sins that cry to heaven’: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.”

 

[Bruised_Reed]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church published by John Paul II in the early 1990s. CCC 1867 says: “The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are ‘sins that cry to heaven’: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.”

CCC 1867 reads “the sin of the Sodomites” and that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is a sin. CCC 2357 reads, in part, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as **acts **of grave depravity.” And CCC 2359 reads, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” The homosexual act are sinful; not homosexual inclinations. Clearwater stated,

“The Catechism tells us that homosexuality is one of only 4 sins which “cries out to heaven” for vengeance”

but that isn’t a precise understanding if one compares that to the other paragraphs in the Catechism.

 

[dmar198]

CCC 1867 reads “the sin of the Sodomites” and that doesn’t mean that homosexuality is a sin. CCC 2357 reads, in part, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as **acts **of grave depravity.” And CCC 2359 reads, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” The homosexual act are sinful; not homosexual inclinations. Clearwater stated, but that isn’t a precise understanding if one compares that to the other paragraphs in the Catechism.

The Catechism makes it clear that when it uses the word “homosexuality” it refers to the act, not the inclination, in CCC 2357. At least, that’s how I interpret it. Other than that small point, I agree with you.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

The Catechism makes it clear that when it uses the word “homosexuality” it refers to the act, not the inclination, in CCC 2357. At least, that’s how I interpret it. Other than that small point, I agree with you.

And I agree with you with reservations. I would not phrase it that way with the OP’s friend because it will not be understood. I don’t think most people would understand it that way. This makes me wonder if the OP has been given a satisfactory answer in all of these posts.

 

[DavidFilmer]

And I agree with you with reservations. I would not phrase it that way with the OP’s friend because it will not be understood. I don’t think most people would understand it that way. This makes me wonder if the OP has been given a satisfactory answer in all of these posts.

I disagree. I think we have provided ample evidence that homosexuality (ie, having homosexual inclinations) is not sinful, but only homosexual sexual conduct.

What remains in question is whether homosexual conduct is any different than the sin of heterosexual sex between non-married people in the eyes of the Church.

As this question does not directly relate to the OP’s question, I think we are all settled on our answer to the OP’s question (namely: being homosexual is not inherently sinful).

Some here wish to contrive “degrees” of mortal sin, and imagine that illicit homosexual sex is somehow “more” mortally sinful than illicit heterosexual sex. The problem is that the Church has never recognized that one sin can be “more mortal” than another. The word “mortal” means “leads to death.” Mortal sin kills the soul. We cannot be more or less “dead.” We are either dead, or alive.

I have asked for citations that make this so-called distinction clear. I have received none (and I did not expect any).

There are some sins that cannot be absolved (except on threat of death) by regular priests (they are reserved to the Bishop, such as abortion), and some sins that cannot be absolved by a Bishop (they are reserved to the Holy See, such as an attempt to kill the Pope). Homosexual sex falls into neither category.

The Church does not recognize that homosexual sex is, in any way, “more” sinful than illicit heterosexual sex.

 

[Sochi]

I have a friend who is homosexual. She knows that I don’t agree with it but I am always lost for words when she or someone else asks me why I believe homosexuality is sinful. I don’t want to sound cruel but I want to make sure I’m saying the right things in these debates. Any advice on how to handle this would be appreciated. Thanks!

Is your friend Catholic? If not, don’t bother, as the “sin” label is part of the Church’s doctrine only, and pretty sketchy one at that. People of any religion necessarily have to view through the lens of their belief, or have to change. It is far easier to keep believing. In that case, remember, it is your belief, not fact, or even natural law. So good idea to keep the “sin” idea to yourself, until you can get over it. Homosexuality turns up statistically in human and many other populations to some percentage or other. Being against homosexuality may have for some some pretty deep emotional roots, but it is a learned reaction, not natural at all. Ask any kid who is part of a family with same sex parents.

So it may be fun or self referentially satisfying to bash homosexuality with counter productive religious ideas, whether christianist or muslim or whatever. But the stigma of homosexuality is a totally artificial one concocted by people not mature enough to handle the natural varieties of attraction found among humans. (Some say there are in fact at least twelve gender orientations, as outlined in a book I’m very sorry I can’t find any more.) There have been societies that completely accepted, or even honored, their homosexuals. Of course, like any portion of the populations, even ministers, rabbis, and priests, there have been saints and sinners. But that is not a function of orientation but something else. Homosexuals of either gender (or any) have enough to trouble them without moralizing religionists of any denomination heaping guilt or worse on them when there is no actual need, other than the emotional immaturity of the pot stirring fear oriented homophobes.

Here’s an idea: if anyone feels it is so easy, go and be a homosexual for a week or a month. Some people think it is just a matter of a decision to change behavior. If so it ought be no trouble for you to be a homosexual for a while. Cool. That means it can go the other way too. Really. Go be a genuine homosexual for a while and see what it is about. Then you might have a partial ground for saying something other than what is a knee jerk reaction that was learned and is reinforced by others who also don’t know–other than that someone taught them, just like racism, or prejudice against another faith. Fortunately, some people are getting real about this, as communication is opening up to some extent, and ignorance is being dissipated to some degree.

Good luck! It’s your life. You can make barriers or impartially Love, as does God. Just remember, there is not one faith on Earth where God has not in some way been made into a puppet for the private thoughts of someone, or groups of someones, less in stature than the Deity.

 

[Amandil]

Disregard everything “Sochi” just posted. They are merely his beliefs based generally upon and parroted from hedonist/pedophile Alfred Kinsey’s views on human sexuality.

 

[Sochi]

Disregard everything “Sochi” just posted. They are merely his beliefs based generally upon and parroted from hedonist/pedophile Alfred Kinsey’s views on human sexuality.

Amandil, thank you for your deeply insightful analysis of my position and the detailed iteration of its origins. Such etiology is exemplary of the position you argue for. I appreciate your support!

 

[Amandil]

Amandil, thank you for your deeply insightful analysis of my position and the detailed iteration of its origins. Such etiology is exemplary of the position you argue for. I appreciate your support!

My “insightful analysis” is based upon your own words:

Sochi:

In that case, remember, it is your belief, not fact, or even natural law.

It is a post containing your subjective beliefs, which therefore must be subject to the very same criticism that you lay upon other beliefs.

The post itself is so full of logical fallacies as a whole its utterly absurd.

 

[Sochi]

My “insightful analysis” is based upon your own words:

It is a post containing your subjective beliefs, which therefore must be subject to the very same criticism that you lay upon other beliefs.

The post itself is so full of logical fallacies as a whole its utterly absurd.

I see you are a fan of Samuel Clemens: “The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane.” So no need in my case for other than name calling. Suits. Good job, and again, thanks for your unflagging support.