Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[Eugenius]

I will say that the people who brought me back into the fold were not the ones who kept their beliefs to themselves. they weren’t the hellfire and brimstone, all gays are going to die, kind either—but I much preferred the ones who told me to my face (like my mom and dad) we don’t accept your behavior, but you will always be our daughter or friend or whatever. my mom allowed me to bring whoever I was dating/living with at the time to come to dinner or events, but there was no way we would spend the night under her roof in the same bed. it was a clear line, very bright.

I hope this isn’t going off topic too far, but I’d like to ask you a somewhat personal question. If you don’t want to answer, I will understand. When you came back to the church were you in a relationship at the time or were you between relationships and perhaps worn out from the dating scene?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Sounds like what is popularly known as a “bromance”.

ILove, though it may sound glib to say, I think “bromance” is the right word here, and Michelle is right on. If your friend identifies as heterosexual and has no homosexual feelings of attraction for this other guy, then I don’t know that I’d characterize the relationship as a truly romantic one.

Unfortunately, we live in a time of hyper-sexualization in which our culture demands that some otherwise basic human emotions and relationships be given a sexual label (hetero, homo, bi, trans, whatever), as if such a label, in it’s uncomplicated simplicity, could exhaust the complexity of human affections or shed light on the true inner workings of the human heart. For the most part, the enterprise is unnecessary, useless and misleading. “Bromance” here might sound like a glib label on a relationship your friend might consider profound, but it, for the most part, skips any insistence on redefining your friend’s sexuality in terms that he clearly doesn’t accept–and it does so with humor, which is always a plus.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

I hope this isn’t going off topic too far, but I’d like to ask you a somewhat personal question. If you don’t want to answer, I will understand. When you came back to the church were you in a relationship at the time or were you between relationships and perhaps worn out from the dating scene?

I was in a relationship with another woman, which I ended as soon as I came to accept the church’s teaching on this matter. I’m comfortable with sharing my testimony/story altho I don’t want to de-rail a thread.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Grace & Peace!

ILove, though it may sound glib to say, I think “bromance” is the right word here, and Michelle is right on. If your friend identifies as heterosexual and has no homosexual feelings of attraction for this other guy, then I don’t know that I’d characterize the relationship as a truly romantic one.

Unfortunately, we live in a time of hyper-sexualization in which our culture demands that some otherwise basic human emotions and relationships be given a sexual label (hetero, homo, bi, trans, whatever), as if such a label, in it’s uncomplicated simplicity, could exhaust the complexity of human affections or shed light on the true inner workings of the human heart. For the most part, the enterprise is unnecessary, useless and misleading. “Bromance” here might sound like a glib label on a relationship your friend might consider profound, but it, for the most part, skips any insistence on redefining your friend’s sexuality in terms that he clearly doesn’t accept–and it does so with humor, which is always a plus.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

I agree, bromance was actually fairly common until not too long ago, for some English examples of bromance we have St. Thomas More and St. John Fisher plus of course Blessed Newman and Ambrose St. John. For the former pair when they were alive it was said when you hear Fisher speak you also here More for they are of one mind and soul.

 

[michelleds]

Hey Michelleds,

I would agree – I don’t think that Catholics need to pretend that they agree with same-sex sexual behaviour, and my mom wouldn’t let my gf and I spend the night in her house either. When I talk about people snubbing LGBTQ types, I’m talking about those situations where you tell someone that you’re gay or lesbian, and then all of a sudden they have a million excuses for why they don’t want to hang out with you. I’ve even had people behave that way when I’ve told them that I used to be a practicing lesbian. It’s a really noticeable/palpable form of discomfort. From what I’ve heard from the men, it’s even worse for gay guys…
I certainly agree that Catholics should tell the truth about homosexuality to their LGBTQ friends, but I really think that friends is the operative word. If you already have a relationship with someone (either friendship, or close family ties) then it becomes possible to tell the truth in a way that is effective, and that manifests convincing love.

Gotcha.

In my own experience, I’ve actually been “snubbed” more by lapsed Catholics who found out about my conversion and chastity than by any other group during my entire life!

 

[Bezant]

That just about sums up how I feel about my three brothers. I love them deeply; seek out their company as often as I can and would do anything for them. I’d probably even lay down my life for them.

Do I find them attractive in any way? Yes. Firstly as people. They are fine, loyal, people. Secondly, as men. They possess what I call ‘manly qualities’. They are loyal, independent, proud, persistent about achieving their goals, respectful of other people and absolutely dedicated to their own families. I admire them.

Your friend needs to stop worrying about what he thinks and feels about another man. He can even worship the ground another man walks on, but that doesn’t make him a homosexual.

Good point on brothers. It’s a bit of a double standard, it is, that girls can show each other a lot of affection before they’re called lesbians, but society doesn’t give us the same latitude before our orientation is questioned.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Good point on brothers. It’s a bit of a double standard, it is, that girls can show each other a lot of affection before they’re called lesbians, but society doesn’t give us the same latitude before our orientation is questioned.

I hate it too, but of course since I am attracted to males I frankly don’t give a damn if they think I might be gay

 

[domandcarols]

Um… He’s a close friend? I love my best friend and admire him, I would do anything for him. Most people feel this way towards a close friend, boy or girl.

 

[domandcarols]

That just about sums up how I feel about my three brothers. I love them deeply; seek out their company as often as I can and would do anything for them. I’d probably even lay down my life for them.

Do I find them attractive in any way? Yes. Firstly as people. They are fine, loyal, people. Secondly, as men. They possess what I call ‘manly qualities’. They are loyal, independent, proud, persistent about achieving their goals, respectful of other people and absolutely dedicated to their own families. I admire them.

Your friend needs to stop worrying about what he thinks and feels about another man. He can even worship the ground another man walks on, but that doesn’t make him a homosexual.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Um… He’s a close friend? I love my best friend and admire him, I would do anything for him. Most people feel this way towards a close friend, boy or girl.

Respectfully, I do not think you understand the OP at all, what he is feeling is so much more more than BFFs which confuses ILoveTheLordGod because in the depraved society we live in we have nothing between “he’s my BFF” and “I’ve got the hots for him”.

 

[NeedImprovement]

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

The quote above is only the first half of section # 10 from the *Letter to the Bishops *. The second half of section # 10 , when included , completes it ; thus presenting the entire facet of the directive being addressed, while leaving a much narrower margin for misinterpretation.

Here is the entire section # 10 from The Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith’s Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (highlights mine) :

1. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

 

[Melinda_Selmys]

NeedImprovement,

I don’t think anyone in this thread is arguing in favour of establishing civil protections for homosexual behaviours. I’m not even talking about civil protections for homosexual persons – I’m just talking about the need for Catholics to behave as if this is just a sin like any other, not a special category of sin that renders the sinner subject to special contempt. (And yes, whether you are one of those Catholics or not, they do exist )

 

[John21652]

Dee, I know many of the people on this forum who have SSA, and so far as I know almost all of us are devoted to the authentic teaching of the Church. Speaking for myself, the only agenda that I have to promote is that laid out in the Vatican’s document on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.”

I find that there is often a tendency on the part of “straight” Catholics to focus on the immorality of homosexual acts, without a corresponding focus on the dignity of the homosexual person. Catholics with SSA speak out about this, because we’ve experienced it, and because we have a deeper understanding of what SSA is, of how people living with it can freely choose to live in accord with the will of the God and the teaching of the Magisterium, and of the real difficulties which must be acknowledged if we are to provide useful pastoral care and guidance to those who are trying to achieve chastity. This may look like an “unintentional agenda,” but in fact it’s just that we actually know that of which we speak, which means that we say things that are more grounded in reality and experience, and less grounded in abstract speculation.

Surely, if anything, homosexual behaviour attacks and erodes the intrinsic dignity of the individual. How can the dignity of an individual be preserved when their behaviour is so disordered? Anyone who immerses themselves into this so called “gay culture” is sacrificing that intrinsic dignity. That, to me, is the bottom line in this entire argument.

 

[NeedImprovement]

NeedImprovement,

I don’t think anyone in this thread is arguing in favour of establishing civil protections for homosexual behaviours. I’m not even talking about civil protections for homosexual persons …

I agree that I wasn’t doing that, and you appear to be saying you weren’t doing that. But I don’t know if I can speak for everyone else on this thread . If we’re going to be totally realistic : Legislation for both “civil protections for homosexual behaviours” and “civil protections for homosexual persons” already exist .

So I wasn’t thinking what you’re implying . However, given that said legislation does in fact exist, what I wished might be avoided, was any confusion for Catholics who might not be so well versed in these matters. And all I did was complete the quote from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Again, given that this type of legislation already exists , someone could easily be misled by a quote from the CDF which ended like this (particularly if, hypothetically speaking, that quote were to be, say, followed by some generalized oblique accusations which tended towards the domain of homophobia) :

“It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law .”

I included the part you decided to omit because (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger directly goes on to clarify that, pertaining to homosexual behaviour :

“** civil legislation … introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right” *" ,should in no way be construed as even remotely equivalent to the " intrinsic dignity of *" a homosexual person being " respected in …" law".

I thought it was quite plain to see why Cardinal Ratzinger included that clarification in Section # 10 - to avoid any confusion for some who may not have been quite so well versed in these matters . I thought it would be beneficial to include that half. That’s all .I’m sure you have your reasons for leaving it out .

 

[Eugenius]

Surely, if anything, homosexual behaviour attacks and erodes the intrinsic dignity of the individual. How can the dignity of an individual be preserved when their behaviour is so disordered? Anyone who immerses themselves into this so called “gay culture” is sacrificing that intrinsic dignity. That, to me, is the bottom line in this entire argument.

Are you disagreeing with the Vatican’s document quoted above?

 

[John21652]

Are you disagreeing with the Vatican’s document quoted above?

Are you trying to ask a leading question? Aren’t you capable of pointing out where you think someone is differeing from the Church. There are lots of documents “quoted above”.

As to my post above, I was referring to those who commit the homosexual acts. The wording of my post makes that rather obvious. So you tell me, how is it dignified to commit homosexual acts?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Are you trying to ask a leading question? Aren’t you capable of pointing out where you think someone is differeing from the Church. There are lots of documents “quoted above”.

As to my post above, I was referring to those who commit the homosexual acts. The wording of my post makes that rather obvious. So you tell me, how is it dignified to commit homosexual acts?

Intrinsic dignity is so intrinsic to the human being that it can not be destroyed no matter how terrible one’s actions are. Fundamentally they are still a human being.

 

[John21652]

Intrinsic dignity is so intrinsic to the human being that it can not be destroyed no matter how terrible one’s actions are. Fundamentally they are still a human being.

Then how is it that we have common sayings about the dignity of one’s behaviour?
If one’s behaviour is constantly undignified, then where’s the dignity of the person at all?

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

Then how is it that we have common sayings about the dignity of one’s behaviour?
If one’s behaviour is constantly undignified, then where’s the dignity of the person at all?

In the fact that said person was known and loved by God from the foundation of the world, was made in the image and likeness of God, and is called to take on His nature. Nothing that anyone does can ever take away from those facts. They comprise a fundamental premise of Christianity. It’s been the teaching of the Church from her founding.
The dignity of the human person remains in tact no matter what anyone does or says. That’s one of the reasons serial mass murderers are not ipso facto deserving of death. In fact, no one deserves death for heinous crimes (I’m using this as an example to prove my point). The Church teaches that in the case of protecting innocent life, the measure of taking the life of a guilty party is permissable as it is needed to defend innocent life. That’s the dignity God has bestowed on us as human beings, to the point of not deserving to die after killing innocents. How much more dignified is the active homosexual who hasn’t killed anyone? Modern Catholics get so caught up in sins that are taboo, sometimes to the point of ascribing too much gravity to them. I’m pretty sure your idea of extremely grave matter is quite different than say, that of a woman living in communist China who was just forced to have an abortion, or a young girl sold into sexual slavery in a third world African nation run by thugs, or even a young man in North Korea. I’m not trying to say that participating in homosexual acts is a good thing, even a good thing compared to doing something else. I’m just saying there are worse things, and it isn’t very becoming of someone to place so much gravity on something as relatively tame as deviant sexual practices. The world is a big scary place, John. There are greater affronts to the dignity of the human person (which you seem to believe is contingent on their lack of sinfulness) than gay sex.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Then how is it that we have common sayings about the dignity of one’s behaviour?
If one’s behaviour is constantly undignified, then where’s the dignity of the person at all?

undignified behaviour is behaviour unfitting the dignity one has been given