Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[NeedImprovement]

Father John Hardon:

HOMOSEXUALITY.

In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished: tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen condition includes every conceivable kind of impulse that with sincere effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, is not by itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural merit. When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy. Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most extensive declaration on the subject was by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.

 

[robbie20]

NeedImprovement:
I certainly don’t need therapy…

 

[NeedImprovement]

I guess some people think it’s all about them . Actually I haven’t been paying much attention at all to those particular posts because the logic is incongruent when it is there at all .
Father John Hardon :

SEX EDUCATION.

Instruction in the right use of sex, according to the teachings of the Church in the light of sound reason and the norms of Christian revelation. The Church teaches that young people should be given and adequately taught about the facts of human procreation according to their age and mental ability, more so today when they are exposed to so many perversions of sex in the media. It should always be given along with the necessary moral instruction. Parents have the primary right and duty to give this education. If they fail, it should be given by a truly qualified person. Collective or public sex education is discouraged because of the risk of incompetence in the teacher, and the practical impossibility of meeting the personal needs of each child in a mass presentation of this intimate subject.

 

[NeedImprovement]

World Catholic Report:

" … I avoid the word ‘gay,’ because it’s a word that has been colonized by one group and because homosexuals on the whole are as miserable as the rest of us …

 

[robbie20]

I guess some people think it’s all about them . Actually I haven’t been paying much attention at all to those particular posts because the logic is incongruent when it is there at all .

What does this post have to do with sex education? lol…

We’re talking about same sex attraction…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

To identify as gay is not helpful if one wants to keep celibate or to leave the lifestyle. There is wisdom in said line of thinking and advice, which is what Courage and Catholic therapists use in counselling those seeking help. Therapists who are under the APA ‘ethics’ do not have this view. Why? Because these mental health professionals have signed on to the erroneous secular belief that homosexuality is normal and should not be discouraged. They even signed on to gay ‘marriage’ and gay parenting as okay. The divide could not be clearer. If the gift of the spirit and spiritual healing are rejected, one moves farther away from the path of light and stay in confinement to worldly answers.

Let me share with the interested as it relates to the use of ‘gay’ and identification as ‘gay’ the note below from the Catholic Medical Association:

Publicly proclaiming that one is gay but living chastely is misguided and not advisable.

1. It is usually based on the mistaken idea that same-sex attraction is an unchangeable aspect of the individual and discourages persons from seeking help;
2. The “gay” community promotes an ethic of sexual behavior which is totally antithetical to the Catholic teaching on sexuality and has made no secret of its desire to eliminate “heterosexism.” There is simply no way the position articulated by spokespersons for the “gay” movement and the Catholic church can be reconciled;
3. It puts easily tempted persons into places which must be considered the near occasion of sin.
4. It creates a false hope that the Church will eventually change its teaching on sexual morality.
   ,

 

[robbie20]

Who said I’m miserable? I’m quite happy in my current set up… Being gay and celibate should be enough for you people…

I’m not going anywhere sorry

The average American continues to use the terms “gay” and “lesbian” to describe people like me…

Your little war on words is a losing one…

Most Americans use the terms

 

[ivebeenshown]

Who said I’m miserable? I’m quite happy in my current set up… Being gay and celibate should be enough for you people…

I’m not going anywhere sorry

The average American continues to use the terms “gay” and “lesbian” to describe people like me…

Your little war on words is a losing one…

Most Americans use the terms

Yeah I think this is a bit out of hand. ‘Gay’ generally means ‘homosexual’, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re associated with the lifestyle. Nothing wrong with the word. It’s quicker to say and type than ‘homosexual’.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yeah I think this is a bit out of hand. ‘Gay’ generally means ‘homosexual’, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re associated with the lifestyle. Nothing wrong with the word. It’s quicker to say and type than ‘homosexual’.

It’s a war on words alright. But you miss the point that the gay movement was pretty good with verbal engineering.

Anyway, to go down to that level of debate, SSA is not much longer to say and type than ‘gay’ and definitely shorter to say and type than ‘homosexual.’

 

[robbie20]

I don’t want to be labelled as someone with SSA or homosxual

I want to be called gay… Plain and simple…

 

[Kolbe300]

If I may interject here, Kolbe, I really miss the quality of your posts early in the year because they were upbeat and open, coming from a positive place.

Hi, ISoG. I always try to stay as positive and kind as I possibly can. Do I always accomplish that? No, unfortunately. This message board can make it difficult for me to maintain that positive attitude sometimes. I do try to apologize though, if I’ve come across as harsh. I am sorry if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings, that’s never my intention.

I don’t know if deep in your heart you really want to use the word ‘gay’ in identifying yourself and that you really don’t care what people would assume about you.

It’s not that I have this insatiable need to call myself gay, and you are correct that I really don’t care what people assume about me. The way I live my life may shatter their assumptions. I simply think people should not assume anything about anyone because the meaning of a word has been hijacked. That’s it. And I can’t believe I’ve actually had to argue for that.

You did say you love the people of the gay culture, but did not say you embrace gay culture.

THANK YOU for noticing that.

Accepting a gay identity has far-reaching implications because being ‘gay’ includes not only personal feelings, but also describes a social and political identity.

I totally agree that the word gay describes more than one thing. And if someone says, “I’m gay,” we shouldn’t assume all those definitions apply to them.

You are in my prayers, Kolbe.

Thank you, ISoG. You and everyone else are in my prayers as well.

Kolbe, I know I started this debate about the word “gay” and the identity that it implies. I did not intend for you to feel personally attacked and I’m afraid that you do. I do not believe that Elizabeth, John or myself intended to make you feel personally attacked.

I don’t feel personally attacked at all. This is an internet forum, it comes with the territory. That’s not to say I don’t find some things to be astronomically annoying. But I don’t take those things personally.

From what you’ve said above, it seems that you are not denying that, you are just saying that it’s wrong to do so because it’s making assumptions or using stereotypes.

You absolutely nailed it. That is exactly what I’m saying. We shouldn’t make assumptions about people we don’t know until we know better, that stereotyping is bad. I’m just amazed that I’ve actually had to debate that. On a Christian forum no less!

You are trying to fight battles on several fronts and I wonder why you are so enamored or attached to this one word that you are willing to throw energy into the “assumption” battle.

I guess I feel that making assumptions about people is something worth battling.

maybe it’s because you and I are in different places in our lives.

I think that has a lot to do with it. Your experience and my experience with homosexuality are very different. There is no pre or post-conversion for me. I’ve never identified with the culture or embraced the culture. But I still grew up as a homosexual person, sometimes also known as “gay.” And for the sake of people with a similar experience, I think we shouldn’t make assumptions because the word “gay” is used.

If I continued to identify as gay/lesbian, I would be giving the impression that either (a) I’m lying to the Church; or (b) the Church is accepting of homosexual activities; or even (c) my conversion isn’t real.

I totally respect and understand your desire not to identify as gay or lesbian. It would seem logical to think that some of those in the gay community might see your conversion to mean you no longer like them or that you think they’re bad people. They might make that assumption, but they’d be wrong. That’s why we shouldn’t assume things about people, regardless of what the culture is telling us to do. It works both ways.

I too want to reach out to my brothers and sisters–heterosexual, homosexual, confused, hurting, whatever.

That is a great thing!

Peace everyone!

 

[robbie20]

Kolbe people here are being unreasonable… So what Kolbe and I are gay… Now I don’t know about Kolbe but what’s the big deal about me?

I’m celibate and that should be enough for you people…

All of you want us to join the ex-gay bandwagon and be miserable self haters who do nothing but feel sorry for themselves because they think they’re broken,

I am not broken and I don’t need or want to be fixed…

I’m gay and I’m proud of it

 

[John21652]

Well that actually works out pretty well. I can show him that not all gay people support the gay culture and flaunt their sexualities in people’s faces. Maybe I can help break down some of the stereotypes you speak of!

Oh, so you are going to say something along the lines of “I’m gay, but I’m not really like that and I stand against everything the gay lobby represents.” Or maybe you’ll say “I’m gay, but I’m Catholic too and I hold true to what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality.” Will you? Even if the majority of gays deride you?

Right. And if that symbol is interpreted incorrectly, I can show them how they’re wrong.

Oh, don’t you worry, the symbolism of being “gay” will be interpreted exactly as the active gay lobby wants it to be interpreted. That symbolism includes wanting to change the law of the land to make homosexual marriage the equal of heterosexual marriage and it includes trivialising and even denigrating Christianity and Catholicism in particular. If you are true to what you say you will do, you will announce your Catholicism long before you announce your ‘gayness’.

But who cornered me? The very person who now has the opportunity to quit stereotyping people. And I can actually help them with that.

Who stereotyped you?! The gay lobby stereotyped you. And if you proclaim your ‘gayness’ you will be tacitly endorsing that stereotypical image. The only way you will alter the stereotype is to proclaim yourself as Catholic first and gay second.

That could be true. But we don’t usually blame the people being Stereotyped. “Stereotyping” is usually seen as a bad thing. And the problem usually lies with those doing the stereotyping.

And who told you that nonsense? Stereotyping may, or may not be proven false. It is a part of the way in which humans communicate; humans stereotype people places and things. It is a form of simplifying knowledge. And please note: stereotyping and predjudice are not the same thing.

Tacit agreement by who? The one being stereotyped or the one doing the stereotyping?

The one who admits to the stereotype by joining the group so stereotyped. In other words, you!

 

[michelleds]

From SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

citing CDF’s “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics”

Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination

“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

No longer citing, but in the document itself

As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation.

and from CCC 2358, the inclination is objectively disordered. Altho we often focus on the maxim that having homosexual inclinations is not a sin, I think we gloss over this piece of the CCC. the CCC teaches that the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, therefore, it seems, one should be working spiritually against those inclinations, not adopting them as part of one’s identity.

 

[michelleds]

the Courage website has the following information. (“Courage, an apostolate of the Catholic Church, ministers to persons with same-sex attraction and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family and our beloved John Paul II said of this ministry, ‘COURAGE is doing the work of God!’”)

Q. Why doesn’t Courage use the terms “gay” and “lesbian”?

A. Courage discourages persons with same-sex attractions from labeling themselves “gay” and “lesbian” for the following reasons:

1. The secular world usually uses those terms to refer to someone who is either actively homosexual or intends to be. When a person decides to “come out” and say “I am gay” or “I am lesbian”, the person usually means “this is who I am - I was born this way and I intend to live this way. I have a right to find a same-sex partner with whom to have a romantic sexual relationship.” To “come out” as being “gay” or “lesbian” doesn’t usually mean “I have homosexual attractions and I have a deep commitment to living a chaste life”.

1. By labeling someone, we discourage those who may wish to try and move beyond homosexual attractions. Some people, especially young people, are able to further their psychosexual development with spiritual and psychological aid. If we labeled them “gay” and “lesbian”, they might think there’s no possibility of moving beyond these attractions.

1. There is more to a person than one’s sexual attractions. Even if one experienced same-sex attractions for most of one’s life, he or she is first and foremost a child of God created in His image. To refer to that person as “gay” or “lesbian” is a reductionist way of speaking about someone. We are even trying now to avoid using the term homosexual as a noun, or as an adjective directly describing the person (i.e. homosexual person). Although it takes more words, we prefer to speak of “persons with same-sex attractions”. Fr. Harvey has said that, if he could, he would rename his first book “The Homosexual Person” to something else like “The Person With Homosexual Attractions”.

There are people within the Catholic Church who might argue that those who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” aren’t necessarily living unchastely. That’s true, but the implications of the terms in today’s society don’t commonly connote chaste living. Furthermore, they are limiting their own possibilities of growth by such self-labeling, and reducing their whole identity by defining themselves according to their sexual attractions. At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered.

 

[John21652]

Not the kindest thing anyone’s ever said to me…

Your right. I was too quick off the mark. Judging from your propensity to answer on behalf of others, you must be now on four cents.

I clarify: nothing happens to that dignity because it is inherent, God-given, immutable, and absolute. I bring up the Catechism because the very idea that that inherent dignity can be decreased is itself an affront to that dignity - is itself disrespectful. We enter dangerous waters when we begin to see others as less deserving of respect. They may be more sinful, they may be further from God, but their inherent dignity is still there, and it has not lessened. Besides, was it not you who was up in arms about any line of thinking that differed from the Catechism? I was simply appealing to your sense of right and wrong. Evidently, that failed.

You have included a whole lot of unsubstantiated asumptions here.
Firstly, who ever sad that human dignity is “Immutable” and “absolute”? Human dignity is preserved by keeping closer to the likeness of God as Genesis explains. The further one moves away from God, the more that human dignity is violated. Until, finally…

I really don’t understand what you mean to say here, so I reiterate: it was appropriate for CorpusChristi to ‘surmise’, as you say, because the kind of dignity you were referring to is of the sociological kind.

Wrong. I differentiated between what you call ‘sociological’ constructs of dignity and theological dignity. Go re-read my first sentence in response to CC in post #45.

As a social science, sociology is full of “guessing” and, though it aims for objectivity, is still largely subjective.

Well, I wont argue with you over the merits, or otherwise, of Sociology! However, that discipline is quite renowned for its use of statistical analyses in its desire to avoid “guessing” and so to be considered “objective”.

That kind of secular dignity is different from our God-given dignity.

Already dealt with. See post#45again. What hasn’t been dealt with is why you would attempt to surmise what CC was surmising in the first place!!

I’m not disagreeing with you! Of course there are degrees of sin and wrongness and culpability. I only ask for comparisons to show that there is indeed relativity to sin - even beyond the classification into Mortal and Venial.

Yes, but you asked for a further classification from within one class of sin, when the fact that two classes existed was proof of the relativity of sin. Disengenuousness comes to mind…

I am not downplaying the seriousness of sin; I am pointing out that relativity. Essentially, CorpusChristi was telling you to CALM DOWN

. Calm Down from what? See, this "surmising leads you to make really silly assumptions.

A grave depravity may be a grave depravity, but you’re acting as though an otherwise perfect angel must burn forever in hellfire over one, small slip-up. Sexual deviancy is not the greatest evil out there.

You are attempting to whitewash the fact that homosexuality is a grave matter. Corpus Christi, for whom you are answering, trivilaised it. I’ll leave it to others to rank it according to its vileness and wrongness and as to the culpability of someone who engages in it.

I’m sorry, but no, he is not at odds with the Catechism. He quotes the homosexual act as being one of “grave depravity”, but where does he contradict that? I reiterate: saying that an act of sexual deviancy is “relatively tame” when compared to serial murder does not make it less grave. It is not a contradiction.

You need to go back to Corpus Christi’s post #46, because there he did in fact write that “…Relative gravity of sin is, well, relative and debatable. Even if you try to convince me that one sin is more grave than the other….”. In post #39 Corpus Christi wrote this - “Modern Catholics get so caught up in sins that are taboo, sometimes to the point of ascribing too much gravity to them…it isn’t very becoming of someone to place so much gravity on something as relatively tame as deviant sexual practices.”

In response, I asked him if he was at odds with the Catechism. It seems he is and your four cent attempt at exonerating him doesn’t cut the mustard.

I think the temporal nature of God is a discussion for another time.

I did not mention the temporal nature of God.

It really doesn’t matter whether you think God has said, is saying, or will one day say that the dignity of a person is no longer in existence. My assertion is that that is something a loving God would not do.

Considering how a “loving God” has been hurt and abandoned by certain sinners, they are not allowed to be with Him. His “loving nature” has not been reciprocated and so the sinners are banished for all eternity. You forget He is more than a loving God. He is also a Just God.

Cont.d

 

[John21652]

**Cont.d **

If a person is in Hell, it is not because God or anyone else has disrespected their dignity; it is because they have disrespected their own dignity and the dignity of others.

If anyone is in Hell, it is because they have denigrated and destroyed their human integrity.

So far as it’s possible to surmise? Yes. Yes they are.

This is where “surmising” gets you into trouble. If it is the case that mass murderers and other horrible people are in Hell, and you say they are still dignified, then you are contradicting the theological definition of human dignity.

Yes, there is a conflict. That’s what makes it sinful. But the inherent dignity I’m referring to is intrinsic to the person, whereas the disordered nature of homosexual activity is intrinsic to the action. A sinful person may be sinful, but they are not any less a person.

Indeed they are, which is why they must confess to restore their human dignity. When one goes to Confession/Reconciliation, it is to confess thoughts, words and deeds. Last I looked, deeds were actions.

In basic terms, intrinsic human dignity is the moral worth of a person as a member of the human species, given by God. That moral worth must be upheld by the individual who was given it. If they fail, they sacrifice their intrinsic human dignity through non-acceptance of their moral responsibility.

It is human actions which denigrate and ultimately destroy human dignity and the final recognition of this is the banishment away from God of the person whose actions have distanced himself from God. To have them near God would be to defile His dignity.

 

[John21652]

From SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

and from CCC 2358, the inclination is objectively disordered. Altho we often focus on the maxim that having homosexual inclinations is not a sin, I think we gloss over this piece of the CCC. the CCC teaches that the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, therefore, it seems, one should be working spiritually against those inclinations, not adopting them as part of one’s identity.

 

[robbie20]

the Courage website has the following information. (“Courage, an apostolate of the Catholic Church, ministers to persons with same-sex attraction and their loved ones. We have been endorsed by the Pontifical Council for the Family and our beloved John Paul II said of this ministry, ‘COURAGE is doing the work of God!’”)

I don’t care what Courage says there’s nothing in Catholic doctrine or teaching that says I can’t be gay…

Sorry but I won’t stop calling myself gay just because you think it’s wrong…

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

michelleds;8670671:

From SOME CONSIDERATIONS CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Any actions which directly flow from a disordered inclination are, by definition, disordered themselves. Deliberately and publicly basing one’s identity on a disordered inclination is a disordered action in itself.

The inclination towards homosexual acts is morally disordered, no one is disputing this.