D
davidv
Guest
This is not consistent with the teachings of the Church.
The conjugal union is not intrinsically lustful.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
The Lord just wants you to repent as a sinner. Even heteros are sinners. The Lord knows you have sin. Just repent it and be at peace.I am one such gay individual whom you refer to. I am deeply drawn to relationship. The romantic kind. To have a family life. Etc. I am a very relational person and cannot ever see myself living alone. It is a major struggle for me to acknowledge the church’s teaching on this subject, when the consequences of the teaching, when applied objectively to all, is a lonely existence. Of course, not all people marry and find themselves in a romantic relationship. And romantic relationships are not the only kind of relationships available to gay individuals. But for people like me, it is very hard to integrate what the church says on the one hand and what I deeply know about my own self, on the other.
Even if the Church is going to uphold traditional sexual moral teachings, I think it will start to approach gay persons with a situation-by-situation accompaniment. Everyone is different. Every gay person is different. Some are able to well-integrate church teaching with their lives; maybe some are able to live celibate lives and do not care much about having a relationship. I am willing to bet big bucks, however, that this is not the case for the vast majority of gay people, even in the church. The Church must realize that not every fits under its umbrella of traditional sexual morality.
Just because you are a homosexual does not mean your sin is greater than a married hetero-couple’s sin.
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
You don’t want to admit your lust.This is not consistent with the teachings of the Church.
The conjugal union is not intrinsically lustful.
Remember, Jesus was a virgin. He had no lust for anyone, neither was he married. And yet you do not want to admit lust, your sin, according to Jesus’ example?
What is better than marriage, other than the Lord’s sanctity? If Jesus truly sanctifies you then you would become as he is, a single one. Isn’t the point of our faith is to become like the Father by imitating the son? And yet the son was not married. How can you say that you become perfect like God is perfect when you disregard even this example Jesus has laid out?
It is because you are dependent upon the flesh as a human being. You were born into the world empty and you seek not the one who can fill that emptiness, Our Lord Jesus. Rather you would seek it in a partner that is a human being.
Marriage does not trump the Lord’s example.
E
edwest2
Guest
This is a good question and I think the following article will be helpful:
ncregister.com/daily-news/same-sex-attraction-and-the-catholic-church
Peace,
Ed
ncregister.com/daily-news/same-sex-attraction-and-the-catholic-church
Peace,
Ed
D
davidv
Guest
Kindly refrain from such uncharitable characterization of me.You don’t want to admit your lust.
Virginity is not a shield against lust.Remember, Jesus was a virgin. He had no lust for anyone, neither was he married. And yet you do not want to admit lust, your sin, according to Jesus’ example?
What is better than marriage, other than the Lord’s sanctity? If Jesus truly sanctifies you then you would become as he is, a single one. Isn’t the point of our faith is to become like the Father by imitating the son? And yet the son was not married. How can you say that you become perfect like God is perfect when you disregard even this example Jesus has laid out?
It is because you are dependent upon the flesh as a human being. You were born into the world empty and you seek not the one who can fill that emptiness, Our Lord Jesus. Rather you would seek it in a partner that is a human being.
Marriage does not trump the Lord’s example.
Mat 5:28:
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
You don’t want me to say that you have sin? Or you don’t want to admit it?Kindly refrain from such uncharitable characterization of me.
Virginity is not a shield against lust.
The Lord was a virgin. Do you think he needed a shield?
So you say that by following Christ’s example we are not led to his sanctity? Then why follow Christ if he can do nothing for you?
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
You think that the power of Christ upon the human soul is not fruitful. You and I walk down different paths then.You don’t want me to say that you have sin? Or you don’t want to admit it?
The Lord was a virgin. Do you think he needed a shield?
So you say that by following Christ’s example we are not led to his sanctity? Then why follow Christ if he can do nothing for you?
D
davidv
Guest
It seems this response ignores the information presented from the CCC.You don’t want me to say that you have sin? Or you don’t want to admit it?
The Lord was a virgin. Do you think he needed a shield?
So you say that by following Christ’s example we are not led to his sanctity? Then why follow Christ if he can do nothing for you?
S
Sacred_Heart_1
Guest
The Lord forgives those who repent of their sin.It seems this response ignores the information presented from the CCC.
D
davidv
Guest
So? What does this do with the topic of this thread?The Lord forgives those who repent of their sin.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Hey,This is false and is rooted in secular egoism. The most profound expression of love is detached self giving as exemplified by Jesus’ death on the Cross.
This is a false claim based on a faulty definition of love.
Once again, word gamesssss. Whatever one wants to say about all the love gay people are able to have, since love means much more than romantic relationships, etc., the substance of this issue still remains: Gay persons cannot engage themselves in the kind of relationship that a husband and wife can, that a boyfriend and girlfriend can, that a guy and a girl can when they are dating, etc. A gay person cannot wish to spend a life committed to another gay person because of a near occasion to sin, etc.
And this doesn’t mean that gay persons “just want sex” or are “lustful.” Romantic unions are not just “a certain kind of love” that gay people cannot have—as if there are plenty of other comparable kinds of love or relationships available to the gay person. The reality is that relationships of a romantic sort are built into the fiber of human nature. Most people want to have that one special someone to share a life of love with.
D
davidv
Guest
Prove that it is just word games. Does truth matter?Hey,
Once again, word gamesssss.
Because…they are not husband and wife.Whatever one wants to say about all the love gay people are able to have, since love means much more than romantic relationships, etc., the substance of this issue still remains: Gay persons cannot engage themselves in the kind of relationship that a husband and wife can,
Sex is a sin these cases also. Are they envious?that a boyfriend and girlfriend can, that a guy and a girl can when they are dating, etc.
According to God this is only true for a male/female relationships. Other romantic relationships are disordered.A gay person cannot wish to spend a life committed to another gay person because of a near occasion to sin, etc.
And this doesn’t mean that gay persons “just want sex” or are “lustful.” If marriage means so much and is very unique, then why are certain members of this thread just treated such unions as just “a certain kind of love” that gay people cannot have. The reality is that relationships of a romantic sort are built into the fiber of human nature.
So? Most people want more money than they currently have. This cannot justify immoral behavior to get more.Most people want to have that one special someone to share a life of love with.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
Word games in the sense that posts were focusing on the definition of love in relation to romantic love. It doesn’t really matter in this context. The OP brought up the specific example of those gay people who cannot see themselves living alone, without a romantic relationship. That is what I first responded to, b/c I am a gay guy who, at present, very much wants to be in this kind of relationship. It doesn’t mean I’m discounting the church; after all, I’m on CAF. I understand well that the church teaches that I am disordered in my sexual orientation/attraction. I’m still trying to find my place in the church.Prove that it is just word games. Does truth matter?
I’m not talking about the church’s rationale. Of course the church means that marriage is a unique institution, for union and procreation, which sex cannot divide. I am pointing out, here, what gay persons must refrain from entering into, according to the Church. The larger issue of this thread is about what the Church can or must do for the gay community, or for gay persons in the church. Romantic unions are closed off for them. And that is the issue here, not whether or not gay people can actually love or experience love in other types of relationships.Because…they are not husband and wife.
I was referring not to sex but the whole dynamic of opposite-sex persons being able to gradually grow in their romantic love. Gay persons cannot do any of the sort, not date, etc., even if refraining from sex, because the are in a near occasion of sin.Sex is a sin these cases also. Are they envious?
I think it’s a little different, don’t you think? We owe our basic human nature to God’s design. There is this spectrum in the Catholic world where so much is said to be of God’s design, and the rest is all due to Original Sin. I’d love to hear an explanation for how homosexuality entered the world via the Fall, especially when one takes into account the factors behind homosexuality – and not merely an abstract temptation or disorder in the passions.So? Most people want more money than they currently have. This cannot justify immoral behavior to get more.
D
davidv
Guest
Word games in the sense that posts were focusing on the definition of love in relation to romantic love. It doesn’t really matter in this context. The OP brought up the specific example of those gay people who cannot see themselves living alone, without a romantic relationship. That is what I first responded to, b/c I am a gay guy who, at present, very much wants to be in this kind of relationship. It doesn’t mean I’m discounting the church; after all, I’m on CAF. I understand well that the church teaches that I am disordered in my sexual orientation/attraction. I’m still trying to find my place in the church.
I’m not talking about the church’s rationale. Of course the church means that marriage is a unique institution, for union and procreation, which sex cannot divide. I am pointing out, here, what gay persons must refrain from entering into, according to the Church. The larger issue of this thread is about what the Church can or must do for the gay community, or for gay persons in the church. Romantic unions are closed off for them. And that is the issue here, not whether or not gay people can actually love or experience love in other types of relationships.
I was referring not to sex but the whole dynamic of opposite-sex persons being able to gradually grow in their romantic love. Gay persons cannot do any of the sort, not date, etc., even if refraining from sex, because the are in a near occasion of sin.
I think it’s a little different, don’t you think?
No I don’t. All sin is rooted in the intellect giving in to disordered passions.
But wounded by original sin.We are our basic human nature to God’s design.
My guess you will have to wait for a scientific explanation of its genesis. The Church admits that it does not know the source of this specific disorder.and There is this spectrum in the Catholic world where so much is said to be of God’s design, and the rest is all due to Original Sin. I’d love to hear an explanation for how homosexuality entered the world via the Fall, especially when one takes into account the factors behind homosexuality – and not merely an abstract temptation or disorder in the passions.
C
catholic1seeks
Guest
My guess you will have to wait for a scientific explanation of its genesis. The Church admits that it does not know the source of this specific disorder.
I’m not one that says natural evils, disorders, and the like are due to Original Sin, since we know from science that such things have always existed in our finite Universe. Some Catholics, like on the Original Sin thread over in Apologetics, say that that all evils, namely physical evils, came about through the Fall. But that is not church teaching. Perhaps the human experience in relation to these evils changed due to Original Sin, but the way the world works… has been… well, working since creation.
And so this is what gets me when it comes to explaining things like homosexuality. Sometimes, when they hear the argument “There exist gay people in this world who don’t choose to be gay, so it must be due to God’s design,” some Catholics will be like “Not so fast! Original Sin and the Fall let in sin and disorders, etc…”
But seeing how homosexuality is not like an imprint on the soul or some vague temptation just “out there,” but is rather more integral to the human person (including his psychology and biology) it does not make much sense to say that Original Sin causes such things.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Friendships…not “relationships”.
That is the path for those with that particular struggle.
That is the path for those with that particular struggle.
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
SSA is:… SSA is the same sin as hetero-attraction. It’s sex.
…
- SSA non-sexualised (crush)
- SSA sexualised (lust)
This was made clear in numerous threads. Read them please!
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
It’s called friendship as Bookcat says. Everybody should befriend people and be befriended. We all need more friends!… Could a same sex relationship with no sex even exist? …
E
edwest2
Guest
From the Catechism:
The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
"402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
"403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
"404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
“405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
"406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
"A hard battle. . .
"407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
"408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301
"409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:
Peace,
Ed
The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity
"402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290
"403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292
"404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.
“405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.
"406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297
"A hard battle. . .
"407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.
"408 The consequences of original sin and of all men’s personal sins put the world as a whole in the sinful condition aptly described in St. John’s expression, “the sin of the world”.300 This expression can also refer to the negative influence exerted on people by communal situations and social structures that are the fruit of men’s sins.301
"409 This dramatic situation of "the whole world [which] is in the power of the evil one"302 makes man’s life a battle:
Code:
The whole of man's history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil, stretching, so our Lord tells us, from the very dawn of history until the last day. Finding himself in the midst of the battlefield man has to struggle to do what is right, and it is at great cost to himself, and aided by God's grace, that he succeeds in achieving his own inner integrity.303"Ed
V
Vic_Taltrees_UK
Guest
This is a good quote from the site “A Queer Calling”:
aqueercalling.com/
" , there exists a hugely problematic misunderstanding about what it means to be LGBTQ and what it means to be celibate. People who describe themselves using LGBTQ language have many different understandings of that language. Contrary to popular belief, it is not reasonable to assume that people who use this language have engaged in any kind of sexual immorality."
aqueercalling.com/
" , there exists a hugely problematic misunderstanding about what it means to be LGBTQ and what it means to be celibate. People who describe themselves using LGBTQ language have many different understandings of that language. Contrary to popular belief, it is not reasonable to assume that people who use this language have engaged in any kind of sexual immorality."
- Status
- Not open for further replies.