Is same-sex romantic attraction sinful?

[Eugenius]

The core potential for goodness is always there, and our bad actions remain redeemable until the moment we draw our last breath and meet our Maker. So a hardened criminal similar to the character Hannibal Lector, or to the lead character in the movie Desperate Measures – any real-life criminal like that has a core dignity, but if he is not behaving to any standard of dignity, then by his actions he has corrupted his own dignity which requires a fundamental and exhaustive conversion, not to mention reparation for that corruption. His dignity has become so compromised that effectively he has made it inert.

All of the great Saints, not just those who came from a position of great sin (like Augustine) experienced how corrosive the effects of sin are. Augustine is a more extreme example: his lifestyle was dissolute. But even Saints who were on an everyday basis what most of us would call holy (Therese of Lisieux, Faustina, etc.) were acutely aware of how even venial sins tarnish, corrupt, degrade our dignity.

If I understand you correctly intrinsic dignity is an absolute that does not change. It is our response to it that changes. I’ve heard this all before, just not using the term “intrinsic dignity.”

 

[michelleds]

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.

It appears to me that some posters responding to John would like to believe that:

(1) human dignity on a theological plane cannot be tarnished, destroyed or minimized through disordered actions;
(2) homosexual acts are less evil than other acts;
(3) ergo, immersing oneself or participating in “gay culture” is harmless

To the posters who are identifying as gay but in adherence to the Catholic Church’s teachings, please tell me how you are increasing the shine of your human dignity by identifying with “gay culture” (which you might want to define as well, but it seems, at a minimum, to include calling yourself gay and wanting other people to accept it).

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

To the posters who are identifying as gay but in adherence to the Catholic Church’s teachings, please tell me how you are increasing the shine of your human dignity by identifying with “gay culture” (which you might want to define as well, but it seems, at a minimum, to include calling yourself gay and wanting other people to accept it).

I think you hit an important point. When you identify (e.g. affiliate) with a particular group, you are in effect throwing your support for its ideology and sanction what it represents, regardless of your personal actions.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Normally, adjectives such as immutable and absolute are attributed to God, who does not change. Naturally, persons are not immutable.

When the Church teaches that all persons were created good, she means it. This is straight from Genesis. And when she says that Jesus redeemed all of us, she means it, as well. But our essential goodness and our capability to respond to our corresponding call to sanctity as children of God can be opposed, ignored, attacked from within and without. We regularly de-activate our dignity.

The core potential for goodness is always there, and our bad actions remain redeemable until the moment we draw our last breath and meet our Maker. So a hardened criminal similar to the character Hannibal Lector, or to the lead character in the movie Desperate Measures – any real-life criminal like that has a core dignity, but if he is not behaving to any standard of dignity, then by his actions he has corrupted his own dignity which requires a fundamental and exhaustive conversion, not to mention reparation for that corruption. His dignity has become so compromised that effectively he has made it inert.

All of the great Saints, not just those who came from a position of great sin (like Augustine) experienced how corrosive the effects of sin are. Augustine is a more extreme example: his lifestyle was dissolute. But even Saints who were on an everyday basis what most of us would call holy (Therese of Lisieux, Faustina, etc.) were acutely aware of how even venial sins tarnish, corrupt, degrade our dignity.

When people commit undignified acts, we are nevertheless commanded not to respond in an undignified way to that behavior. (The prison guard, for example, who is trying to live in accord with the Commandments, does not go beyond what his job requires him to do for protection of self & the prison community.)

Thankyou for that post Elizabeth502 ,

You’ve provided me with some fresh practical perspectives for further rumination on Father John Hardon, S.J.'s definition of dignity … from his [ Modern Catholic Dictionary

](Dictionary of Terms - A)

DIGNITY

The excellence that deserves recognition and praise in a person or thing. Highest in dignity is God, whose superiority over all creation is the basis for adoration. (Etym. Latin dignitas, dignity, worthiness, worth.)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

NeedImprovement, you brilliantly nailed it in two sentences! :tiphat:

How can the intrinsic dignity of a person be preserved if intinsically disordered acts are habitual?

That’s like suggesting that A can exist in the same space as B.

It is logically impossible.

1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

Regardless of the evil they do all people are still created in the image of God. The intrinsic dignity is in fact part of the person’s soul, as much as people try the soul can not be destroyed.

The intrinsic dignity is what allows anyone to do a good action no matter how terrible they were.

 

[Luigi_Iovane]

The Roman Catholic Church regards homosexuality as a sin, and I believe in that. But I do not believe in God sending homosexuals into Hell, because He is a forgiving God. It is a good thing your friend’s attraction for the other is not lust, because this is Mortal Sin. Just tell your friend to remember that God forgives everyone, except those that do not believe in His Son, Jesus.

I do believe that promoting homosexuality is a grave sin. God created the man and the woman for them to be together.

 

[Kolbe300]

To the posters who are identifying as gay but in adherence to the Catholic Church’s teachings, please tell me how you are increasing the shine of your human dignity by identifying with “gay culture” (which you might want to define as well, but it seems, at a minimum, to include calling yourself gay and wanting other people to accept it).

I think you may have started to spot the answer to your own question when you had to include the part in parentheses. Ask people on the streets how to define “gay culture” and you’ll get all kinds of different answers. There is no one definition. When I have told close friends and family about my sexuality, I’ve used the word gay. Why? Because that’s how homosexually oriented people almost always will describe their sexuality (regardless of sexual activity). I’ve never heard the term SSA anywhere but here. It seems anywhere on the planet other than CAF, people don’t automatically make assumptions about what kind of “culture” you do or do not support based on one word.

How many times must gay Catholics say, “just because I use the word gay doesn’t mean I support the ‘gay culture’ or ‘agenda’” before people will believe that? Here is a FACT: lots of people who identify as gay do not support gay culture or participate in homosexual activity. That is a FACT.

Based on that fact, isn’t it up to us not to make assumptions? And how hard is it to just ask someone what they do or do not support? It’s like blaming someone else for the assumptions we make. I don’t get that. Think about it the next time someone assumes you worship statues because you said you’re Catholic. Is that assumption your fault, or theirs?

 

[robbie20]

For me as a gay Catholic I can accept the celibacy… But I think the disordered part and the whole discrimination is okay in employment arguement are junk.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

For me as a gay Catholic I can accept the celibacy… But I think the disordered part and the whole discrimination is okay in employment arguement are junk.

It’s my understanding the word “disordered” not is intending to convey some form of medical assessment but is used in the context of how homosexuality is not in alignment with the procreation and life generation process. As for discrimination, what discrimination policies are you referring to?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Regardless of the evil they do all people are still created in the image of God. The intrinsic dignity is in fact part of the person’s soul, as much as people try the soul can not be destroyed.

The intrinsic dignity is what allows anyone to do a good action no matter how terrible they were.

Dakota, I don’t read any post in the discussion on human and intrinsic dignity that says sinful people merit malicious acts on them, corporal punishment, or death, or that their souls can be destroyed.

I think what this side saying is that homosexual behavior is not to be praised and that homosexual attraction / tendency is not to be made more than it is or that it is intrinsically ordered.
,

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota, I don’t read any post in the discussion on human and intrinsic dignity that says sinful people merit malicious acts on them, corporal punishment, or death, or that their souls can be destroyed.

I think what this side saying is that homosexual behavior is not to be praised and that homosexual attraction / tendency is not to be made more than it is or that it is intrinsically ordered.
,

Homosexual acts are wrong, mortally sinful and disordered just like the other types of fornication.

 

[michelleds]

How many times must gay Catholics say, “just because I use the word gay doesn’t mean I support the ‘gay culture’ or ‘agenda’” before people will believe that? Here is a FACT: lots of people who identify as gay do not support gay culture or participate in homosexual activity. That is a FACT.

I had a very lengthy response but it was lost in transmission.

I will point out that you are claiming, rather boldly, that something is fact, and I challenge you to prove it.

I also said, with many quotes from gay theory, queer theory, and queer theology, that when you claim membership in a group, especially a statistically small group, you are expected to embrace and support that group’s ideology. if you find the ideology of the group repugnant, don’t self-identify with it. on the other hand, if you continue to self-name yourself as a member of the group, you can’t hardly get your panties in a twist because people call you on it.

if you don’t want people to think that you are (a) homosexually active, (b) supporting gay ideology, or (c) supporting a gay political agenda, don’t call yourself gay. that’s pretty easy.

I myself told someone just the other day, “hey, you know I’m not gay anymore”. didn’t kill me or the other person. didn’t set the world on fire either, but hey, we all do what we can.

 

[michelleds]

as for their being no definition for gay culture or that there’s a different definition for every person, see, for instance, the following scholarly articles/books:

Gay Culture in America: Essays from the Field By Gilbert H. Herdt
Acts of intervention: performance, gay culture, and AIDS By David Román
A Place in the Rainbow: Theorizing Lesbian and Gay Culture by Janice M. Irvine

and one last example of identifying with a small group: if someone came up to you and said that they were polyamorous, and nothing more, would you think that they were in or out of step with the Catholic Church?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I think you may have started to spot the answer to your own question when you had to include the part in parentheses. Ask people on the streets how to define “gay culture” and you’ll get all kinds of different answers. There is no one definition. When I have told close friends and family about my sexuality, I’ve used the word gay. Why? Because that’s how homosexually oriented people almost always will describe their sexuality (regardless of sexual activity). I’ve never heard the term SSA anywhere but here. It seems anywhere on the planet other than CAF, people don’t automatically make assumptions about what kind of “culture” you do or do not support based on one word.

How many times must gay Catholics say, “just because I use the word gay doesn’t mean I support the ‘gay culture’ or ‘agenda’” before people will believe that? Here is a FACT: lots of people who identify as gay do not support gay culture or participate in homosexual activity. That is a FACT.

Based on that fact, isn’t it up to us not to make assumptions? And how hard is it to just ask someone what they do or do not support? It’s like blaming someone else for the assumptions we make. I don’t get that. Think about it the next time someone assumes you worship statues because you said you’re Catholic. Is that assumption your fault, or theirs?

Hi Kolbe,

Precisely, gay culture has a clear definition. When somebody is part of the gay culture, it means that the individual is living the lifestyle that sees nothing wrong with homosexual acts and behavior in general. So why use gay to identify yourself if you have to qualify that with “but I am celibate”? It seems to me same sex attracted is a phrase or word that eliminates the need to qualify, and leaves the heterosexual user of the word free of the worry that he/she may come across as judgmental to another who may have homosexuality issues.

SSA is not just a term in use at CAF. Other sites (LDS, Jewish, and non-Catholic Christian sects) also use it, as you can check. If SSA started with Catholics of Courage, and it is the preferred term so as to remove all the prefacing or disclaimers right off the bat, what of it? The intention is good,so I don’t understand the need to knock the argument that SSA is a better word to use.

The homosexual movement, of which you are not a part as you made clear in this forum, has successfully injected into the nomenclature meanings not previously associated with the word. Just look at the long view. Original activists in the Kirk and Madsen era introduced ‘homophobia,’ as an example, and the word stuck. The same with ‘gay’ and ‘queer.’ Language is important in social engineering and it is said to start with verbal engineering. Get my drift?

If you wish to disassociate yourself from the gay culture, Michelle provided a good argument for dropping the self ID as gay.

ISoG
,

 

[NeedImprovement]

…… I thought I just heard someone warming up a flamethrower in the background aomewhere around 7 posts ago (I wonder why that happens so often here at CAF pertaining to this subject in particular … just when we’re starting to make sense too ? )

---

CCC 1706 (highlights mine)

By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.” Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor. **Living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person. **

If we’re suppposed to do what is good and avoid what is evil , we first have to be able to identify what is good and what is evil : You have to call a spade a spade and a sin a sin ; and what is good, good. In this way, we know what to avoid and what to strive after. Downplaying the seriousness of sin accomplishes none of that.

We are very blessed to have the Holy Catholic Church ( as a teacher and as a mother ) Who, in her objectivity , definitvely lays these things out for us.

If "living a moral life bears witness to the dignity of the person " , then what does living an immoral life do ?

Again ,as Catholics , we are blessed to have the sacrament of Reconciliation. But what good would even that do us if we remain incapable/unwilling to admit the gravity of our sins ?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Homosexual acts are wrong, mortally sinful and disordered just like the other types of fornication.

And I don’t see any post that indicates homosexual acts are more sinful than fornication. Or that a celibate gay is not as special as a celibate heterosexual.

I say let’s race on the path of goodness without the need to trip the other towards the day we face God.
,

 

[ToeInTheWater]

To the posters who are identifying as gay but in adherence to the Catholic Church’s teachings, please tell me how you are increasing the shine of your human dignity by identifying with “gay culture” (which you might want to define as well, but it seems, at a minimum, to include calling yourself gay and wanting other people to accept it).

Would you say the same to non-Catholics? Since I had never come across the term “SSA” until I came to CAF. There are non-Catholic Christians who call themselves “gay and celibate” because they have no idea what else to call themselves.

I think even the disagreements between you, michelleds, and Melinda, who seem to have similar stories regarding ongoing same sex attractions, but use different terms for self-identification, indicate that there is room for disagreement here.

 

[Kolbe300]

I will point out that you are claiming, rather boldly, that something is fact, and I challenge you to prove it.

How many self-identified, gay, celibate Christians need there be for us to stop assuming things when we hear the word gay? Ten? A million? One? Do I have to prove that I’m not the only one before people will stop making assumptions?

if you don’t want people to think that you are (a) homosexually active, (b) supporting gay ideology, or (c) supporting a gay political agenda, don’t call yourself gay. that’s pretty easy.

You know what is just as easy? Not making assumptions about people until we know better.

I myself told someone just the other day, “hey, you know I’m not gay anymore”. didn’t kill me or the other person. didn’t set the world on fire either, but hey, we all do what we can.

I could say that too, if it was true.

and one last example of identifying with a small group: if someone came up to you and said that they were polyamorous, and nothing more, would you think that they were in or out of step with the Catholic Church?

If all they said was that they are polyamorous, how could I possibly assume anything about them at all? I don’t know what they believe, I don’t know how they behave, I don’t know a thing about them! And on an internet forum this should be even MORE true. Until someone knows better, an assumption shouldn’t be made. Like you said, it really is that easy.

When somebody is part of the gay culture, it means that the individual is living the lifestyle that sees nothing wrong with homosexual acts and behavior in general.

Right, when somebody is a “part of the gay culture.” Being gay doesn’t make one an automatic member of the culture.

So why use gay to identify yourself if you have to qualify that with “but I am celibate”?

Because I don’t mind saying “I am gay” and I don’t mind saying “I am celibate.” If people want to assume things, they can. That is their problem, not mine.

It seems to me same sex attracted is a phrase or word that eliminates the need to qualify, and leaves the heterosexual user of the word free of the worry that he/she may come across as judgmental to another who may have homosexuality issues.

I should use SSA so someone else doesn’t worry about coming across as judgemental? I would ask who has the* real *problem in that scenario. Here’s how I envision the use of SSA in the real world looking:

Me: I’m same sex attracted.
Them: What the heck do you mean by that?
Me: I’m gay but celibate.
Them: Oh, okay. Gotcha.

The intention is good,so I don’t understand the need to knock the argument that SSA is a better word to use.

The intention is no doubt good. I don’t argue that. But, looking at the constant debates over the use of the word here (where it actually** is **used), points to the fact that it causes confusion.

If you wish to disassociate yourself from the gay culture, Michelle provided a good argument for dropping the self ID as gay.

I don’t feel a particular need to disassociate myself from something I’m not associated with. If saying “I’m gay” makes others assume to know things about my sexual behavior and the culture I associate with, so be it. That is entirely their problem and their judgement.

Here is the beef of my argument in one question: If we know there is one self-identified gay person who follows Catholic teaching somewhere out there in the crowd, shouldn’t we stop assuming there isn’t one?

Peace everybody!

 

[John21652]

How many self-identified, gay, celibate Christians need there be for us to stop assuming things when we hear the word gay? Ten? A million? One? Do I have to prove that I’m not the only one before people will stop making assumptions?

You know what is just as easy? Not making assumptions about people until we know better.

I could say that too, if it was true.

If all they said was that they are polyamorous, how could I possibly assume anything about them at all? I don’t know what they believe, I don’t know how they behave, I don’t know a thing about them! And on an internet forum this should be even MORE true. Until someone knows better, an assumption shouldn’t be made. Like you said, it really is that easy.

Right, when somebody is a “part of the gay culture.” Being gay doesn’t make one an automatic member of the culture.

Because I don’t mind saying “I am gay” and I don’t mind saying “I am celibate.” If people want to assume things, they can. That is their problem, not mine.

I should use SSA so someone else doesn’t worry about coming across as judgemental? I would ask who has the* real *problem in that scenario. Here’s how I envision the use of SSA in the real world looking:

Me: I’m same sex attracted.
Them: What the heck do you mean by that?
Me: I’m gay but celibate.
Them: Oh, okay. Gotcha.

The intention is no doubt good. I don’t argue that. But, looking at the constant debates over the use of the word here (where it actually** is **used), points to the fact that it causes confusion.

I don’t feel a particular need to disassociate myself from something I’m not associated with. If saying “I’m gay” makes others assume to know things about my sexual behavior and the culture I associate with, so be it. That is entirely their problem and their judgement.

Here is the beef of my argument in one question: If we know there is one self-identified gay person who follows Catholic teaching somewhere out there in the crowd, shouldn’t we stop assuming there isn’t one?

Peace everybody!

The crux of what Michelle is telling you is, if you don’t want to be seen as, recognised as belonging too and labelled as a supporter of the entire gay scene, don’t go around intoducing yourself as “gay”. Or else have a very long winded introduction ready. Something like, “Hi, I’m gay, but I only suffer from the attraction side of it and don’t practice abnormal, dysfunctional sex practices with someone of the same sex and I dissasociate myself from the gay scene which wants homosexuality normalised to such an extent that we can all get married and adopt babies because we can’t have any all by ourselves”.

 

[Kolbe300]

The crux of what Michelle is telling you is, if you don’t want to be seen as, recognised as belonging too and labelled as a supporter of the entire gay scene, don’t go around intoducing yourself as “gay”.

Thank you, but I really do get the crux of what Michelle is telling me. I just don’t agree with it. The crux of what I’m saying (and most are disagreeing with) is to stop assuming things about people because of one word.

Or else have a very long winded introduction ready. Something like, “Hi, I’m gay, but I only suffer from the attraction side of it and don’t practice abnormal, dysfunctional sex practices with someone of the same sex and I dissasociate myself from the gay scene which wants homosexuality normalised to such an extent that we can all get married and adopt babies because we can’t have any all by ourselves”.

Again, I appreciate the warning. However, I never intorduce myself as gay. I don’t ever talk about unless it has something to do with the conversation. And when I’ve had to, for whatever it’s worth, it looked nothing like your example above. It’s really quite easy since people don’t usually make assumptions until they know better. (I’m speaking about the non-internet world there).