Is homosexuality sinful?

[Other_Eric]

Hi Guys!

I was reading here the post asking whether homosexuality is genetic. To my way of thinking, the question is irrelevant as a genetic origin would still not make sexual acts between members of the same sex moral or even morally neutral. Besides, there is a much more interesting question to be asked.

The genetic thread brought up reparative therapy, a system of converting a homosexual into a heterosexual. I’ve read Nicolosi and Soccarides on the theory and I’ve read all of the arguments against it. I am not interested in that discussion. Let us assume, for the purposes of this thread, that this therapy actually works. Unlike the genetic question, the psychological question brings with it moral ramifications that I do not believe either side would like.

The Church’s position on homosexuality has been that the condition, in and of itself, is not sinful. This is because the condition is not chosen. However, in the face of a reparative therapy that works, this is no longer the case and the homosexual who remains that way is effectively choosing to be that way. It could be argued that reparative therapy is a path to God’s grace that this individual rejects. So, it seems the Church’s present position on the blamelessness of the condition would be exactly wrong. The mere presence of the temptation would be sinful.

Now I’ve heard it said by other Catholics that the Church would never articulate a position on this issue that effectively says: “change or die in sin.” This is, of course, utter nonsense because that is the message that Christianity is sending to everyone.

I got a more careful response from a friend who said that God’s grace was sufficient to overcome any temptation and that because a heterosexual orientation was no guarantee of a more moral existence that the condition remained morally neutral. This still does not satisfy because to be Christian is to do one’s best to attain perfection. You cannot be both perfect and still subject to disordered passions.

So, what is the answer? Should the Church redefine her position to state that homosexuality is, in and of itself, sinful? If not, why not?

 

[demolitionman65]

It could be argued that reparative therapy is a path to God’s grace that this individual rejects. So, it seems the Church’s present position on the blamelessness of the condition would be exactly wrong. The mere presence of the temptation would be sinful.

I see flaws in the argument here.

1. The church does not demand that one receive therapy if it is available for a “disorder”. Just because the therapy is available does not mean the afflicted must take part in it to “be out of a state of sin.”

The mere presence of the temptation would be sinful

This is incorrect. Presence of temptation is present for ALL of us; homosexual, heterosexual, whatever. A near occasion of sin is not a sin. Temptation is everywhere. Virtue comes about from the resistance against temptation. This is also true, regardless of one’s sexual orientation. Given your statement, a heterosexual must also go into therapy. That is absurd on its face, as I am sure you will admit.

Now I’ve heard it said by other Catholics that the Church would never articulate a position on this issue that effectively says: “change or die in sin.”

This is correct.

This is, of course, utter nonsense because that is the message that Christianity is sending to everyone.

*Why *is this nonsense? Exactly where in Christianity have you heard this? From individual Christians? Church teachings? Let’s have some support for this statement, which amounts to a pretty serious accusation, before we go any farther.

In the meantime, in response to your question, II would state that homosexuality -as a genetically programmed orientation- is in and of itself not a sin. The behavior freely chosen is.

 

[BibleReader]

Homosexual inclinations are not at all sinful.

Celebrating those homosexual inclinations with homosexual thoughts, words and deeds is sinful.

 

[Other_Eric]

Hi demolitionman65!

Change is an obvious quality of Christianity. Without it the religion is pointless. Man exists in a fallen state. Christianity’s call is to overcome this fallen state, to do that which we might not otherwise be disposed to doing on our own. To change to become more authentically human. The message to change can be found in each of the sacraments. The sacrament of baptism inaugurates change by transforming an individual from a child of wrath to a child of grace. Penance forgives sins, another change. Marriage disciplines the passions, yet another example of change. If you can, I would very much like to hear about the virtue of being inert and how this is separate and distinct from spiritual sloth.

It is true that the Church does not require of her flock that they seek therapy in every case for every disorder. She may make it a requirement for certain individual cases as in that of an alcoholic who needs to attend AA. While the near occasion of sin may not be a sin itself, the faithful have an obligation to avoid it. By rejecting reparative therapy, the homosexual willfully puts himself into a near occasion of sin. Even if not acted upon, this is clearly a case of sinful presumption.

 

[Other_Eric]

BibleReader:

Homosexual inclinations are not at all sinful.

Celebrating those homosexual inclinations with homosexual thoughts, words and deeds is sinful.

Hi BibleReader!

What is a “homosexual word?” Fabulous?

If the inclinations are not to be celebrated, how are they to be handled? The most obvious answer is to erradicate them, which is exactly what conversion therapy does. In my hypothetical example the homosexual is willfully choosing not to do exactly that. He is choosing to remain in his disordered condition. How can that possibly be justified as a moral good or morally neutral?

 

[tuopaolo]

The Church doesn’t say that the condition isn’t chosen.

I don’t know whether the condition is chosen in every case but it is probably true that in most if not all cases the person is morally responsible for the condition … just as an alcoholic would be morally responsible for his condition since it was his actions (and not just his genes) that got him there.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Other Eric:

The mere presence of the temptation would be sinful.

If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it would mean Our Lord (who was tempted 40 days in the desert) was sinful.

 

[Other_Eric]

JKirkLVNV:

If you follow that to its logical conclusion, it would mean Our Lord (who was tempted 40 days in the desert) was sinful.

Hi JKirkLVNV!
Did Our Lord actively seek to be tempted? I think that is debatable. It’s also instructive that He taught us to pray to be “delivered” from temptation, not to wallow in it.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Other Eric:

Hi JKirkLVNV!
Did Our Lord actively seek to be tempted? I think that is debatable. It’s also instructive that He taught us to pray to be “delivered” from temptation, not to wallow in it.

I still don’t think you have a point. Even the greatest of the Saints had to fight temptation. How do you know homosexuals wallow in temptation? And do not heterosexuals as well? The prayer to be delievered from temptation must surely be from the effects of temptation, ie, sin. What you are proposing has never been taught by the Catholic Church.

 

[Genesis315]

Other Eric,

I see your point, but think of it this way: I am a single heterosexual guy. In that way, I am in the same boat as the homosexual. We both have strong desires to engage in sexual acts, but to do so would be a sin in both our cases. Fornication and sodomy are both gravely disordered. Should the Church require me to go into therapy or force me to marry? I don’t think so. Turning a homosexual into a heterosexual will not eliminate sexual temptation, it will just come at them from a different angle.

 

[BibleReader]

Other Eric:

Hi BibleReader!

What is a “homosexual word?” Fabulous?

If the inclinations are not to be celebrated, how are they to be handled? The most obvious answer is to erradicate them, which is exactly what conversion therapy does. In my hypothetical example the homosexual is willfully choosing not to do exactly that. He is choosing to remain in his disordered condition. How can that possibly be justified as a moral good or morally neutral?

Hi, eric.

HOMOSEXUAL WORDS: “Hey, man, are you queer, too?” Because the question has within it a potential for inviting the other to solicit engaging in homosexual style sex acts, they would be “homosexual words.” One does not have to be the sharpest tack in the box to figure this out.

THE DISORDERED CONDITION OF HOMOSEXUALS: My observations in life lead me to conclude that an inclination to homosexual behavior in males, usually bi-sexual in structure, is imprinted and therefore fundamentally unchangeable. My observations in life lead me to conclude that Christians telling homosexuals that there is a moral duty to affirmatively fight homosexual imprinting are wrong, and possibly immoral.

Homosexuals are called to celibacy with respect to all forms of homosexual thoughts, words and actions. I think that Christ, Himself, in the gospels, gently infers the same.

 

[Other_Eric]

JKirkLVNV:

I still don’t think you have a point. Even the greatest of the Saints had to fight temptation. How do you know homosexuals wallow in temptation? And do not heterosexuals as well? The prayer to be delievered from temptation must surely be from the effects of temptation, ie, sin. What you are proposing has never been taught by the Catholic Church.

**2846 **This petition goes to the root of the preceding one, for our sins result from our consenting to temptation; we therefore ask our Father not to “lead” us into temptation. It is difficult to translate the Greek verb used by a single English word: the Greek means both “do not allow us to enter into temptation” and “do not let us yield to temptation.” “God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one”; on the contrary, he wants to set us free from evil. We ask him not to allow us to take the way that leads to sin. We are engaged in the battle “between flesh and spirit”; this petition implores the Spirit of discernment and strength.

-The Catechism of the Catholic Church
​

​

Hi JKirkLVNV!

It seems that part of what we are being asked to pray for is not to be put into a state of temptation. The Church may not be saying that the temptation itself is a sin, but it does teach we are to avoid the near occasion of sin or to avoid situations in which we know we are going to be subject to temptation. The homosexual in my example willfully chooses to be subject to a temptation that he need not be because of the existence of reparative therapy. He chooses to live his life implicitly not avoiding the near occasion of sin as the Church does teach we need to do.

 

[demolitionman65]

Hello, Eric.

By rejecting reparative therapy, the homosexual willfully puts himself into a near occasion of sin.

I refer you to Genesis and Bible Reader’s recent posts in response to this. They are on the mark.

If I might add my two cents: I am a certified counselor with a MS in Counseling Psychology: It is my professional opinion that forcing people into therapy is counterproductive, both mentally and spiritually. If the homosexual is successfully living a chaste life, one nered not then be forced into therapy.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

[/right]
Hi JKirkLVNV!

It seems that part of what we are being asked to pray for is not to be put into a state of temptation. The Church may not be saying that the temptation itself is a sin, but it does teach we are to avoid the near occasion of sin or to avoid situations in which we know we are going to be subject to temptation. The homosexual in my example willfully chooses to be subject to a temptation that he need not be because of the existence of reparative therapy. He chooses to live his life implicitly not avoiding the near occasion of sin as the Church does teach we need to do.

I don’t think that follows. The Church has never taught that temptation is itself sinful, only the giving in to temptation: “for our sins result from our consenting to temptation.” . You are also assuming that reparative therapy works for everyone. It does in some instances, it doesn’t in others. And we are subject to temptation willy-nilly. Lust is one of the deadly sins. Notice that the Church doesn’t distinguish between types of lust, it merely (and powerfully) says that ALL lust is sinful. I think the homosexual who doesn’t give into temptation, but prays for chastity and purity of heart is following Christ’s injunction to “take up your cross and follow Me.”

 

[Other_Eric]

Hidemolitionman65!

I’m not talking about forcing anyone into therapy. Yes, I realize that would be counterproductive. What I am saying is that the decision not attempt a therapy that removes a temptation appears to be a sinful decision. The individual remains free not to go to the therapy just as he remains free not to do God’s will.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Genesis315:

Other Eric,

I see your point, but think of it this way: I am a single heterosexual guy. In that way, I am in the same boat as the homosexual. We both have strong desires to engage in sexual acts, but to do so would be a sin in both our cases. Fornication and sodomy are both gravely disordered. Should the Church require me to go into therapy or force me to marry? I don’t think so. Turning a homosexual into a heterosexual will not eliminate sexual temptation, it will just come at them from a different angle.

Excellent point. Consider what I have heard tell that an old priest who taught in a seminary said when asked,“When does the struggle of the flesh and celibacy stop being an issue?” He replied,“About three weeks after you’re dead!”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Other Eric:

Hidemolitionman65!

I’m not talking about forcing anyone into therapy. Yes, I realize that would be counterproductive. What I am saying is that the decision not attempt a therapy that removes a temptation appears to be a sinful decision. The individual remains free not to go to the therapy just as he remains free not to do God’s will.

That would put the Church (who in her hierarchy holds that charism to bind and loose on issues of faith and morals) in the position of mandating something that would cost money to attain, wouldn’t it? And what about people who live where this service is not available? You may think those points are extreme, but the point is this: access to the Mercy of God is free and immediate (in the instance that we cannot go to confession, we are admonished to make an act of perfect contrition, with the resolve of going to confession at the first opportunity, which is also, incidentally, free). I think you’re going down a logical path that’s going to peter out.

 

[Other_Eric]

Hi Genesis315!

Genesis315:

I see your point, but think of it this way: I am a single heterosexual guy. In that way, I am in the same boat as the homosexual. We both have strong desires to engage in sexual acts, but to do so would be a sin in both our cases. Fornication and sodomy are both gravely disordered. Should the Church require me to go into therapy or force me to marry? I don’t think so. Turning a homosexual into a heterosexual will not eliminate sexual temptation, it will just come at them from a different angle.

Yes, sodomy and fornication are both gravely disordered but I note that sodomy is a sin that
“cries to heaven” and fornication is not. Moreover, you, as a single, heterosexual guy, cannot be
said to be in exactly the same boat as a homosexual. Your desire for a mate of the opposite sex is
natural, the Church defines the very desire of a homosexual for a partner of the same sex as
objectively disordered in and of itself.

 

[mercygate]

Genesis315:

Other Eric,

Fornication and sodomy are both gravely disordered.

Fornication is not a “disordered” behavior because it involves a man and woman doing what men and women are designed by God to do. Fornication is sinful outside of marriage but it is not disordered.

 

[caroljm36]

Just going by your subject line, I would say NO. The Church does not say homesexuality is sinful, and I was pretty ticked off by that protest group in SF that carried a big banner saying it was. They better not have been Catholics and my guess is they were some sort of protestant fundies.

Even the OT refers to it as sodomy or to “lay with another man” or some such, referring to the acts themselves not the fact of attraction. I think the actual fact of attraction is more widespread than people realize but the whole Judeo-Christian project was meant to help us transcend those sorts of wasteful pursuits.