I don't think homosexuality is a sin

[Joe_5859]

Well I would certainly think so myself. The reason for raising it as a question is that I see people posting that homosexual acts are sinful but not the attraction. I dont see the lusting in your heart aspect of homosexuality mentioned. Of course I understand we are posting to a forum not writing tight expositions on morality. But I wouldn’t want people to forget about that aspect of sin. Especially because it is by entertaining thoughts and desires that we often go astray physically.

Sure. You could be right that many would unknowingly gloss over this aspect of “acting out” upon the inclination.

 

[ILoveTheLordGod]

Ah, I see where there’s some slight contradictions.

My definition for homosexuality is someone who has SSA.
But it seems as if the term “homosexuality” refers to gay acts minus SSA.

I think I now know why God said “men who practice homosexuality” and not “homosexuals”.

 

[ILoveTheLordGod]

Well I would certainly think so myself. The reason for raising it as a question is that I see people posting that homosexual acts are sinful but not the attraction. I dont see the lusting in your heart aspect of homosexuality mentioned. Of course I understand we are posting to a forum not writing tight expositions on morality. But I wouldn’t want people to forget about that aspect of sin. Especially because it is by entertaining thoughts and desires that we often go astray physically.

If that’s the case, then it’s not homosexuality’s fault, but rather just plain attraction because lusting in the heart happens to both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Chastity and homosexuality

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,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 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.

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.

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.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM

 

[Rock_Happy]

Ah, I see where there’s some slight contradictions.

My definition for homosexuality is someone who has SSA.
But it seems as if the term “homosexuality” refers to gay acts minus SSA.

I think I now know why God said “men who practice homosexuality” and not “homosexuals”.

It is rather remarkable, how often this topic comes up here. I would say that homosexuality is one of the normal variants of human sexual orientation, and I think that the large majority of the psychological/psychiatric/medical/scientific community would agree with that assessment.

The etiology is not entirely known, though there are some tantalizing clues, and the knowledge base is growing exponentially. Within two years, we should be at the $100 point for genomic analysis, which once cost about $1B, the first time it was accomplished just a decade ago. Stay tuned, and we might have more answers, soon.

In the meanwhile, it is also generally agreed that one does not “choose” one’s sexuality. It is a core part of one’s personality.

The official Church teaching is that SSA is “objectively disordered”, which is a statement which once agreed with the scientific and medical consensus, but is now in disagreement with that body of knowledge and opinion. This is not an unusual position for science and religion in relation to each other, and it one of the challenges of religious institutions… to stay relevant and accurate in their moral teachings in light of advancing science and evidence. As our ability to acquire biological and behavioral scientific data increases dramatically with the integration of exponentially growing technologies, this problem may become even more of a challenge.

Behavior, is another matter. The Church would say that some are simply not entitled to a sexual relationship, and that engaging in such a relationship is a sin. Many gay people would say that they are equally entitled to a loving emotional and sexual relationship, and that the discrimination which has been heaped on them over the centuries must continue to be struck down, as it has been for nearly 50 years now. Social progress is slow. Sometimes the Church is a moral leader, sometimes has been a moral failure. However, you asses its current position, I think we can all agree that if it does change its position as it has on many other moral issues of the centuries, that the change will come slowly.

 

[Joe_5859]

However, you asses its current position, I think we can all agree that if it does change its position as it has on many other moral issues of the centuries, that the change will come slowly.

You’ve stated this several times now. I don’t wish to derail the thread with a tangential discussion, but I am curious as to what these alleged flip-flops on moral issues are in the history of the Church. I would encourage you to look into it for yourself and find the primary sources of what the Catholic Church actually taught regarding moral issues. If one does that, any apparent changes in moral teaching suddenly disappear.

 

[exnihilo]

If that’s the case, then it’s not homosexuality’s fault, but rather just plain attraction because lusting in the heart happens to both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.

I’m not sure I get what you are saying. I think any lusting in the heart (save for your spouse which I reckon is OK) is sinful.

 

[kozlosap]

I agree that it is NOT a choice.

If it was a choice, why would someone choose to be gay in a country where you can be killed for it?

I do think you are born with it. It can’t be culture, as not every culture is the same, and there is SSA in every culture/continent/country you go. So if its not nurture, it must be nature.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m not sure I get what you are saying. I think any lusting in the heart (save for your spouse which I reckon is OK) is sinful.

Lusting after our spouse is also a sin. By definition, lust means we are turning the person we are lusting after into an object.

Now, this doesn’t mean we can’t legitimately desire our spouses (indeed, it would be odd if we did not). That’s probably the sense in which you meant it.

 

[exnihilo]

It is rather remarkable, how often this topic comes up here. I would say that homosexuality is one of the normal variants of human sexual orientation, and I think that the large majority of the psychological/psychiatric/medical/scientific community would agree with that assessment.

It is a variant. But that does not make it normal. The medical, scientific, and psychology fields cant say what is normal morally. Even at that people are born with six fingers but that does not make it normal.

In the meanwhile, it is also generally agreed that one does not “choose” one’s sexuality. It is a core part of one’s personality.

I dont know about that. Certainly prisons and other confinements would show people will engage in homosexual sex who are not normally so inclined. Furthermore people can control and tame their desires.

The official Church teaching is that SSA is “objectively disordered”, which is a statement which once agreed with the scientific and medical consensus, but is now in disagreement with that body of knowledge and opinion. This is not an unusual position for science and religion in relation to each other, and it one of the challenges of religious institutions… to stay relevant and accurate in their moral teachings in light of advancing science and evidence. As our ability to acquire biological and behavioral scientific data increases dramatically with the integration of exponentially growing technologies, this problem may become even more of a challenge.

Science can say nothing about what is disordered. All it can do is declare what it observes. Science observes killing but has nothing to say about the morality of it. People who look to science for morality are doomed to lose morality.

Behavior, is another matter. The Church would say that some are simply not entitled to a sexual relationship, and that engaging in such a relationship is a sin. Many gay people would say that they are equally entitled to a loving emotional and sexual relationship, and that the discrimination which has been heaped on them over the centuries must continue to be struck down, as it has been for nearly 50 years now.

So far as I know the Church says everyone is entitled to a sexual relationship. But it has limits as does practically everyone and institution. A person can forgo the right by assuming a position for which sex is denied. Every adult is forbidden from sex with children. Every adult can enter into a sexual relationship with the opposite sex if they have not taken a vow, if they get married, and if the person is of the opposite sex (a requirement for marriage). Everyone can have such a relationship but like all things it has rules and limitations.

Social progress is slow. Sometimes the Church is a moral leader, sometimes has been a moral failure. However, you asses its current position, I think we can all agree that if it does change its position as it has on many other moral issues of the centuries, that the change will come slowly.

Social change is slow. ‘Progress’ is often quick as it looks to jettison the past. ‘Progress’ is often misidentified as change. Not everything new (or what is old that is new again) is good. If the Church were to change its position it would undermine it completely.

 

[exnihilo]

Lusting after our spouse is also a sin. By definition, lust means we are turning the person we are lusting after into an object.

Now, this doesn’t mean we can’t legitimately desire our spouses (indeed, it would be odd if we did not). That’s probably the sense in which you meant it.

Actually I’m learning how to better think on this and you are helping!

 

[jomoco]

You’ve stated this several times now. I don’t wish to derail the thread with a tangential discussion, but I am curious as to what these alleged flip-flops on moral issues are in the history of the Church. I would encourage you to look into it for yourself and find the primary sources of what the Catholic Church actually taught regarding moral issues. If one does that, any apparent changes in moral teaching suddenly disappear.

Okay, an apparent change, the Vatican no longer supports wars of foreign conquest by force of arms that kill Moslems in their own countries. No more crusades, no more torture till you convert or die.

Not that it doesn’t happen anymore by any means, but the Vatican’s catching on, ever so slowly changing, letting objective truth encompass and shape the body of the Church, changing its traditions for the betterment of its parishoners, thereby increasing the numbers of its flock greatly.

Funny how just the opposite, wars of armed conquest, and loss of parishoners in vast numbers, were both leading co-stars of the 21st century’s opening chapter!

Gives me this strong sense of deja-vu, oh no not again surely?

jomoco

jomoco

 

[SwizzleStick]

I have a question on that. In Matthew 5:28 Jesus says ‘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’. I’m not sure what the Church teaches regarding this but would same sex lust be a sin as well? So both the acts and a lust would be sinful.

Attraction is not sinful. Lust is sinful. All of us are called to chastity, even those who are married. We are not to reduce anyone to simply an object to meet our base needs.

 

[speakttruth]

Hi,
First of all there is an apostolate called Courage and Encourage for men and women who want to live their Catholic faith and live a chaste life. www.couragerc.net It was the only approved apostolate by the pontificate. Places with any Rainbow above their names are activists groups that believe people should live out their SSA and become PPH. This apostolate doesn’t use the word homosexual, gay, bi, lesbian, they use SSA Same sex attraction. Encourage is a support group for families that are struggling with loved ones that have SSA or PPH they called that People Practicing or Promoting homosexuality. A person with SSA is not sinful, they are carrying a heavy cross, the sin is when like anything, when we have an impure sexual attraction or thought, whether the opposite or the same sex and then act upon it. It then becomes a sin. If you want to use the word homosexual tendencies that is what is meant by SSA and that is NOT a sin. As you should know sex is only allowed in the context of marriage, between a man and a women in the Catholic Doctrine. People with SSA are not born that way. There are a multiple factors of emotional wounds from childhood and should be treated with love and respect, but in no way to accept that behavior. If you want to call it a predispostion to be a sensitive person as being born with, so could you have a predispostion to alchohol, or anger or anything else that is not healthy,you wouldn’t have to act out on it. As Catholics we have to speak the truth in love or you are not doing love, your promoting a lifestyle that has more problems than any other group of persons. Unfortunately the activists have been promoting lies. Look at what the damage has been done to families, including divorce, living together, children out of wedlock, sexual abuse, missing fathers and single moms. A lot of these factors have contributed to an SSA persons childhood wounds.

Hope this helps

 

[Joe_5859]

Okay, an apparent change, the Vatican no longer supports wars of foreign conquest by force of arms that kill Moslems in their own countries. No more crusades, no more torture till you convert or die.

Not that it doesn’t happen anymore by any means, but the Vatican’s catching on, ever so slowly changing, letting objective truth encompass and shape the body of the Church, changing its traditions for the betterment of its parishoners, thereby increasing the numbers of its flock greatly.

Funny how just the opposite, wars of armed conquest, and loss of parishoners in vast numbers, were both leading co-stars of the 21st century’s opening chapter!

Gives me this strong sense of deja-vu, oh no not again surely?

jomoco

jomoco

Can you please cite the magisterial document that promoted/encouraged military conquest and/or torture-for-conversion tactics? Thanks.

 

[jomoco]

Can you please cite the magisterial document that promoted/encouraged military conquest and/or torture-for-conversion tactics? Thanks.

Let’s see, Urban II I believe? 11th century fellow, rather ruthless.

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/crusades.stm

jomoco

 

[Joe_5859]

Let’s see, Urban II I believe? 11th century fellow, rather ruthless.

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/crusades.stm

jomoco

That’s not a magisterial document. That’s an article on the Crusades with a lot of misinformation about their history and purpose.

 

[jomoco]

That’s not a magisterial document. That’s an article on the Crusades with a lot of misinformation about their history and purpose.

The instructions were:

We solemnly enjoined upon them at the council of Auvergne (the accomplishment of) such an undertaking, as a preparation for the remission of all their sins. And we have constituted our most beloved son, Adhemar, Bishop of Puy, leader of this expedition and undertaking in our stead, so that those who, perchance, may wish to undertake this journey should comply With his commands, as if they were our own, and submit fully to his loosings or bindings, as far as shall seem to belong to such an office. If, moreover, there are any of your people whom God has inspired to this vow, let them know that he (Adhemar) will set out with the aid of God on the day of the Assumption of the Blessed Mary, and that they can then attach themselves to his following.

Source:

August. C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eyewitnesses and Participants, (Princeton: 1921), 42-43

[End Quote]

jomoco

 

[John21652]

Let’s see, Urban II I believe? 11th century fellow, rather ruthless.

gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/crusades.stm

jomoco

This is nonsense.

Firstly, there is no document relating to Urban II’s call to the First Crusade. That is attested to in POPE URBAN II’S PREACHING OF THE FIRST CRUSADE,by H.E.J.Cowdrey. The document linked to states explicitly that it is doubrful that what Pope Urban II preached at Clermont will ever be fully known and that details of what he said have been coloured by medieval recollections.

Author Piers Paul Read in his book The Templars: The Dramatic History Of The Knights Templar describes Urban II as “A couteous, conciliatory and good looking man” (p 67 The Templars).

 

[jomoco]

This is nonsense.

Nonsense?

This account of Urban II’s speech was written toward twenty-five years after Urban’s visit to France and does not claim to give more than a general idea of the pope’s arguments

In the year of our Lord’s Incarnation one thousand and ninety-five, a great council was celebrated within the bounds of Gaul, in Auvergne, in the city which is called Clermont. Over this Pope Urban II presided, with the Roman bishops and cardinals. This council was a famous one on account of the concourse of both French and German bishops, and of princes as well. Having arranged the matters relating to the Church, the lord pope went forth into a certain spacious plain, for no building was large enough to hold all the people. The pope-then, with sweet and persuasive eloquence, addressed those present in words something like the following, saying:

"Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race beloved and chosen by God, - as is clear from many of your works,- set apart from all other nations by the situation of your country as well as by your Catholic faith and the honor which you render to the holy Church: to you our discourse is addressed, and for you our exhortations are intended. We wish you to know what a grievous cause has led us to your country, for it is the imminent peril threatening you and all the faithful which has brought us hither.

From the confines of Jerusalem and from the city of Constantinople a grievous report has gone forth and has -repeatedly been brought to our ears; namely, that a race from the kingdom of the Persians, an accursed race, a race wholly alienated from God, `a generation that set not their heart aright and whose spirit was not steadfast with God,’ violently invaded the lands of those Christians and has depopulated them by pillage and fire. They have led away ap art of the captives into their own country, and a part have they have killed by cruel tortures. They have either destroyed the churches of God or appropriated them for the rites of their own religion. They destroy the altars, after having defiled them with their uncleanness…The kingdom of the Greeks is now dismembered by them and has been deprived of territory so vast in extent that it could be traversed in two months’ time.

"On whom, therefore, is the labor of avenging these wrongs and of recovering this territory incumbent, if not upon you, you upon whom, above all other nations, God has conferred remarkable glory in arms, great courage, bodily activity, and strength to humble the heads of those who resist you ? Let the deeds of your ancestors encourage you and incite your minds to manly achievements:-the greatness of King Charlemagne, and of his son Louis, and of your other monarchs, who have destroyed the kingdoms of the Turks and have extended the sway of Church over lands previously possessed by the pagan. Let the holy sepulcher of our Lord and Saviour, which is possessed by unclean nations, especially arouse you, and the holy places which are now treated, with ignominy and irreverently polluted with the filth of the unclean. Oh, most valiant soldiers and descendants of invincible ancestors, do not degenerate; our progenitors., but recall the valor of your progenitors.

"Let hatred therefore depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher-, wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves. That land which, as the Scripture says, `floweth with milk and honey’ was given by God into the power of the children of Israel. Jerusalem is the center of the earth ; the land is fruitful above all others, like another paradise of delights. This spot the Redeemer of mankind has made illustrious by his advent, has beautified by his sojourn, has consecrated by his passion, has redeemed by his death, has glorified by his burial.

“This royal city, however, situated at the center of the earth, is now held captive by the enemies of Christ and is subjected, by those who do not know God, to the worship the heathen. She seeks, therefore, and desires to be liberated and ceases not to implore you to come to her aid. From you especially she asks succor, because as we have already said, God has conferred upon you above all other nations great glory in arms. Accordingly, undertake this journey eagerly for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the reward of imperishable glory in the kingdon of heaven…”

When Pope Urban had urbanely said thes and very similar things, he so centered in one purpose the desires all who were present that all cried out, " It is the will of God! I It is the. will of God 1 " When the venerable Roman pontiff heard that, with eyes uplifted to heaven, he gave thanks to God and, commanding silence with his hand, said:

"Most beloved brethren, today is manifest in you what the Lord says in the Gospel, `Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them’; for unless God had been present in your spirits, all of you would not have uttered the same cry; since, although the cry issued from numerous mouths, yet the origin of the cry as one. Therefore I say to you that God, who implanted is in your breasts, has drawn it forth from you. Let that then be your war cry in combats, because it is given to you by God. When an armed attack is made upon the enemy, this one cry be raised by all the soldiers of God: ‘It is the will of God! It is the will of God!’ [Deus vult! Deus Vult!]

---

Source:

James Harvey Robinson, ed., Readings in European History: Vol. I: (Boston:: Ginn and co., 1904), 312-316

[End Quote]

Hearsay perhaps, but nonsense?

jomoco