Question on homesexuality

[joannazenobia]

As long as you are living chastely (I assume that you were Catholic at the time of your Protestant marriage?), you are completely aloud to go to Confession, and then receive the Eucharist. In fact, you should never deny yourself the sacramant of Penance, no matter how grave your sins. The graver they are, the sooner you should go!

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

Well, the only reason I can’t because our priest said I can’t. So, I don’t want to disobay my “Father”. I see him all the time in our church

But I do go to church throughout the week and observe all my other practices…er…or at least trying to as best as a sinner can.

 

[CarlaOLS]

What a load.

What a lot of people appear to do on this forum would, in another context, be called “enabling”. I’m not an enabler, and I’ll be very glad to fight you fiercely on that point. It’s apparently the MO of the liberals around here to tear down anyone who succinctly answers questions with the teaching of the Church. You won’t get me to back down.

ip, i have NEVER and will NEVER stray from the truth and teachings of the Holy Catholic Church. I believe I would (with grace of course) give my very life to defend even the smallest of her Truths. And I hope no one here mistakes me for a liberal LOL.

Really labels like liberal and conservative belong in the political arena. Here I hope and pray every Catholic wants only the salvation of souls. We must understand that to a person suffering SSA, things do not appear so black and white. For some their condition itself has the ability to blind them. Their feelings and emotions draw them with such a natural feeling, they easily fall into traps seeking justification of desired behaviors. They feel as if they are being handed an unfair and lifelong punishment when told to be chaste, like they have no hope of happiness in love, corporal or spiritual.
It breaks my heart to think of the pain they endure, when they feel it necessary to separate themselves from the Church, from the Word of God and even from God Himself. They don’t* want *to do that either.

As Catholics, we need to work harder to understand all they are suffering, all they fear, and everything about their condition, their SSA. Only then can we ask them to see things in a different light. Only when we understand them can we have compassion and passion in praying for them. Only then can we begin to offer them community as they work to heal thier past, to understand themselves and to find HOPE in the future.

In the meantme, we can ALWAYS encourage everyone involved to pray, pray, pray. God has such a plan for each one of us, and part of that Divine plan is that we support each other in truth and love.

Visit this BLOG to read what one person sees as a weakness or failure of the Church’s response to SSA. ssahope.blogspot.com/

 

[Kolbe300]

As Catholics, we need to work harder to understand all they are suffering, all they fear, and everything about their condition, their SSA. Only then can we ask them to see things in a different light. Only when we understand them can we have compassion and passion in praying for them. Only then can we begin to offer them community as they work to heal thier past, to understand themselves and to find HOPE in the future.

Carla,

Though I don’t agree with you on all fronts, I admire your passion and your approach. I just want to offer my two cents when it comes to reparative therapy and the such (and the reasons my opinion differs from yours). I firmly believe that homosexuality lies on a spectrum. There is no one cause or set of causes that fit all cases and this poses a problem, a big problem. Being someone who is SSA, I have done more research than I care to admit on the subject. I am Catholic and I am chaste (celibate, in this case).

A short trip through NARTH and similar organizations will show that the theories of “cause” they provide, while repeated over and over, are very limited. It nearly always boils down to this: distant father, and/or an over compensating mother, and/or sexual abuse, and/or an inability to relate to members of the same sex. That is the theory in a nutshell. My concern (among many) is how the theory applies to those who fit none of those categories. I have no doubt that many homosexuals fit into those categories (as do many heterosexuals). What can be done for those who don’t fit the theories? While NARTH undoubtedly has some good resources, the evidence of their misquoting and misrepresenting some experts (Dr. Francis Collins, for example) makes me question everything I see there.

The problems I see with insisting that homosexually oriented persons should go repair their sexuality is simple: the definition of “repair” is as clear as mud. Leaving behind a “gay lifestyle” is more often than not considered a successful “cure”. While that may be admirable, it is often times not an actual change in sexuality. Very few success testimonies need to be read to see this.

While I would never suggest such therapy for someone, I believe anyone who truly wants to attempt reparative therapy should feel free to do so. For their sake, I hope they are successful. The approach I truly believe is needed is, like you say, to offer hope. I just feel that those with SSA should know that hope CAN be found even when reparative therapy isn’t part of the equation. People need to know, especially young people, that one doesn’t have to be “straight” to find hope. That way, if reparative therapy doesn’t work, the person isn’t left feeling all the more hopeless.

Peace,
Kolbe

 

[dnar]

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Gay people did NOT choose to be gay. I am gay, and I am Catholic. I did NOT choose to be gay anymore than any of you chose to be straight, or any of us chose our gender. My love is just as valid and good as anyone else’s. I should be able to express my love physically to the one person I am committed to as well. Lour love can’t produce offsrping (neither can sex between an infertile couple), but it definitely can be an expression of love…

The act of homosexuality is a sin whether you believe it is or not.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Matthew 16:19;I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[ipwnuathalo]

Really labels like liberal and conservative belong in the political arena. Here I hope and pray every Catholic wants only the salvation of souls. We must understand that to a person suffering SSA…… we need to work harder to understand all they are suffering, all they fear, and everything about their condition, their SSA. Only then can we ask them to see things in a different light. Only when we understand them……to understand themselves and to find HOPE in the future.

OK, I’m going to tear into you, fraternally.

This is the wrong, wrong, wrong approach. The reason it is wrong is that it plays entirely into the hands of an agenda that says that homosexuality is special.

It is not special. It is one of a nearly infinite number of sinful behaviors people are tempted to. The sins it concerns are potentially mortal, like many, many other types of sins.

When you engage in the above kind of thinking, you have lost the war for souls before it ever begins. This is the language that enables homosexuals to see themselves in a black hole of self-pity “Oh woe is me, I was made this way, God is so cruel blah, blah, blah”.

The antidote to this is to proclaim, loudly and longly, that everyone is tempted to mortal sin. I have special antipathy for heterosexual females who over-sympathize with homosexual males - Heterosexual males don’t spend a lot of time consoling gay men over “how difficult it must be” because straight men know exactly how difficult it is for any man to be chaste - and we’re not impressed with a lack of effort!

The gay lobby has spent the last generation trying to convince everyone that they are special, a group deserving of social protections and sympathy. This is not right. The enablers in society have assisted them in this agenda. It goes on here on this forum.

Real charity to gay people is to tell them:

“You have challenges like everyone. All of us are tempted to throw our souls away for temporal happiness. You are not special in this way. You have a particular temptation. I’m sorry about that. Your social lobby has made it basically impossible for the psychiatric sciences to even try to help you. I’m sorry about that too. But to spend your life in self-pity over the challenges you have been given is to disrespect all of the other people of the world, some of whom have challenges to holiness greater than yours. The Church is here, offering the grace that *all of us *need to overcome the potentially fatal challenges sin puts before us. I know it’s tough, but if you go through life with the mistaken idea that your challenges are different in kind and worse than everyone else’s, you are deluding yourself and giving in to Satan’s first temptation. Stand up, be a human being, confess your sins, do your best to avoid the near occasion of sin, pray for strength and live your life like the rest of us.”

 

[Ne_OrangeKnight]

Well, the only reason I can’t because our priest said I can’t. So, I don’t want to disobay my “Father”. I see him all the time in our church

Your priest told you that you can’t go to Confession?!

Don’t mean to derail the thread, but that doesn’t sound right to me at all.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight

 

[Lynxdk]

When you engage in the above kind of thinking, you have lost the war for souls before it ever begins. This is the language that enables homosexuals to see themselves in a black hole of self-pity “Oh woe is me, I was made this way, God is so cruel blah, blah, blah”.

From what I’ve read of the testimonials of the people who that kind of therapy ~has~ worked for, it’s ~nothing~ like you say, they don’t indulge in self-pity at all. Life isn’t Marine Corp boot-camp, and you can’t treat all people with that sort of mentality.

Seriously, would you treat someone who’s suicidally depressed like that? Because even if you can get people to “suck it up and get over themselves” it’s often only temporary, and they’ll often end up not bothering to get help the next time they’re on the edge. That sort of nonsense doesn’t fix the problems, it only covers it up. Again, the sort of idea that works for ~some~ people, but doesn’t work at all for others, and often makes it worse.

 

[dnar]

Homosexuality is NOT a sin. Gay people did NOT choose to be gay. I am gay, and I am Catholic. I did NOT choose to be gay anymore than any of you chose to be straight, or any of us chose our gender. My love is just as valid and good as anyone else’s. I should be able to express my love physically to the one person I am committed to as well. Lour love can’t produce offsrping (neither can sex between an infertile couple), but it definitely can be an expression of love…

The act of homosexuality is a sin whether you believe it is or not.

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Matthew 16:19; I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

 

[Portrait]

The act of homosexuality is a sin whether you believe it is or not.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Matthew 16:19;I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Dear dnar,

I was always given to understand that the Catholic Church considered homosexuality a sin and made my appeal to our Catechism in support of this. However it was recenctly brought to my attention that para. 2357 refers to homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” but that this is not synonymous with being sinful. Schizophrenia is disordered and yet no one claims that such a condition is sinful.

However, I note that para. 2357 also makes reference to homosexual acts as “acts of grave depravity” and validates this assertion with several citations from Sacred Scripture: Gen 19: 1-29; Rom 1: 24-27; I Cor. 6:10; I Tim 1:10. Now surely if “acts of grave depravity” are not sins then what are they? The I Corinthians passsage distinctly says that homosexuals “will not inherit the kingdom of God”, which must denote that homosexuality is a mortal sin which, unless repented of, will result in the perpetrator of such a sin being consigned to eternal punishment in Hell.

Perhaps you can clarify this for me.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CarlaOLS]

You have stated the Church’s words well.
Now it is important to* distinguish between the act and the attraction. *

The attraction itself is disordered, and is involuntary. It is key tounderstand that the attraction to the same sex is NOTHING like a normal heterosexual attraction to the opposite sex. It is primarily an instictive drive (albeit one that developed as the psyche’s defensive measure against certain rejections, (real or subconsciously perceived) and the brains’s attempt to fullfill unmet (and normal) homo-emotional needs. So the attractions themselves are NOT A SIN nor are they even sinful.

Now attractions drive certain human passions, which begin with normal, even innocent daydreaming about being with or being loved and paid attention to by the same sex. These daydreams and thoughts are sexualized during puberty, an extremely hormonal, confusing and volatile stage for any person. Often the SSA afflictee will slowly escalate to pornography, but it is most likely the closeness portrayed not the sex that draws them. Then once fantasy and finally experience of either masturbation, or actual physical encounters occurs the SSA person is on a spiraling course driven by his desires and passions rather than by his reason or morals. Sex and pornography are well known for their addictive qualities and bilogically men, gay or straight, have a much higher drive than women, gay or straight.of the same-sex etc.

There’s so much more to explain and I apologize if this is too graphic or hard to consider.

UNDERSTANDING HOW IT ALL BEGINS IS THE KEY TO COMPASSION AND CHARITY.

The bottom line is all sexual acts outside of marriage are a sin. Sexual acts with a person of the same sex are a depravity. But the attractions, the wanting to be with or be loved or held by someone of the same sex is not in and of itself sinful.

Peace,
Carla

 

[Portrait]

Dear Carla,

Thankyou for taking the time to try to clarify our Church’s position vis-a-vis homosexuality but, alas, your comments have not shed any light on the issue as such.

Unfortunately I cannot concur with your elucidation of para. 2357 of our Catechism. It is quite emphatic in stating that it is the *homosexual acts *that are “intrinsically disordered” and not any attraction between members of the same sex. Moreover, the use of the pronoun “they” (used four times), refering back to the previously mentioned homosexual acts would seem to validate this. Furthermore, unless I am completely mistaken, the Catechism actually speaks rather negatively regarding any “attraction” between members of the same sex - “they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity”.

Whilst the Church does refer to homosexual acts as “acts of grave depravity”, I am still curious to know as to why it desists from using the biblical name sin to describe this violation of God’s moral law. Is the Church endeavouring to soft-pedal or moderate the utter odious and wicked nature of this sin to ingratiate itself with the modern world, whilst at the same time seeking to uphold the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition by stating that homosexual acts cannot be “approved”? As I said previously if “acts of grave depravity” are not sins then quite frankly I do not know what is. Should not the Church have spoken more plainly and bluntly about such a morally reprehensible sin as sodomy?, after all Sacred Scripture does? In the current climate of moral relativism it is vitally important that our Church does not mince matters or, to use the biblical metaphor, give an “uncertain sound on the trumpet”.

Today the increasing prevalence of homosexuality, which is complacently regarded by the avante-garde as a natural and interesting variant, is a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon a civilization which glories in its post-Christain character.

Both homosexual orientation and behaviour are surely an evidence that we live in a fallen world.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Scottgun]

Dear Carla,

Thankyou for taking the time to try to clarify our Church’s position vis-a-vis homosexuality but, alas, your comments have not shed any light on the issue as such.

Unfortunately I cannot concur with your elucidation of para. 2357 of our Catechism. It is quite emphatic in stating that it is the *homosexual acts *that are “intrinsically disordered” and not any attraction between members of the same sex. Moreover, the use of the pronoun “they” (used four times), refering back to the previously mentioned homosexual acts would seem to validate this. Furthermore, unless I am completely mistaken, the Catechism actually speaks rather negatively regarding any “attraction” between members of the same sex - “they do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity”.

Whilst the Church does refer to homosexual acts as “acts of grave depravity”, I am still curious to know as to why it desists from using the biblical name sin to describe this violation of God’s moral law. Is the Church endeavouring to soft-pedal or moderate the utter odious and wicked nature of this sin to ingratiate itself with the modern world, whilst at the same time seeking to uphold the teaching of Sacred Scripture and tradition by stating that homosexual acts cannot be “approved”? As I said previously if “acts of grave depravity” are not sins then quite frankly I do not know what is. Should not the Church have spoken more plainly and bluntly about such a morally reprehensible sin as sodomy?, after all Sacred Scripture does? In the current climate of moral relativism it is vitally important that our Church does not mince matters or, to use the biblical metaphor, give an “uncertain sound on the trumpet”.

Today the increasing prevalence of homosexuality, which is complacently regarded by the avante-garde as a natural and interesting variant, is a dreadful mark of God’s wrath upon a civilization which glories in its post-Christain character.

Both homosexual orientation and behaviour are surely an evidence that we live in a fallen world.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Many acts in the Catechism are described as grave wrongs or grave depravity, etc. This is because they are considering the acts in and of themselves. Sin is about personal culpability, which is subjective. Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge, and consent. By marking an act as a grave wrong, it is indicating that that act fulfills the first component of mortal sin. It’s not soft-peddling, it’s being precise.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Portrait - I appreciate your view as I too when I first read what the Catechism said felt the Church had white-coated their words. The Catholic Medical Association explained it better I felt. http://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/H&H%20Selection.pdf
On closer scrutiny, I saw the Church’s words were meant to be exact, and she was very careful in her word choice.

When she uses the word intrinsic for instance. The **act **is intrinsically disorderd - it is disordered in its essence and origin. Now she can’t very well say that of the attraction for obvious reasons. The attraction’s origin is not disordered but natural in its essence - that is, needing affection, acceptance, affirmation and love from the same sex is entirely natural and healthy. Normally we have those natural and ordered desires fulfilled though our paternal, maternal and fraternal love of our family, friends and peers.

Unfortunately the very exact wording can be nmisread and misused by those in the Church and outside to suggest that having a sexual attraction is normal or acceptable.

Does that help?

 

[CarlaOLS]

Kolbe - I wanted to acknowledge your earlier statements. Here are a couple of things I’d like to share based on what you said.

I agree that homosexuality lies on a spectrum as you say, as do many psychological/emotional/developmental disorders and conditions. The fact that there is no one-shoe-fits therapy for homosexual issues should not in any way detract from the very real fact that there are courses that can be pursued to bring about a healthier condition in the person who has SSA.

Your view of NARTH is regrettable, but realize that such organizations are entirely charitable and very much run with volunteers etc. Information can get old, or be lacking etc…

I too have researched SSA and continue to do so, and I disagree with you that it all boils down to “a distant father, and/or an over compensating mother, and/or sexual abuse, and/or an inability to relate to members of the same sex.” I have NOT found any legitimate research or writing on the matter that even remotely claimed such a simplistic view of the causes and origins. On the contrary most use the term **conspiracy of factors **to describe the myriad causes of SSA. In fact I feel many authoritative sources are so careful in their description and writing as to make SSA afflictee feel hopeless. This is so sad because there is SO MUCH HOPE.

There are those as you say who fit the bill of the ez to identify factors, and of course there are those whose profiles and past would not easily fall into any one or two categories. But this should not surprise anyon ein the mental health field. It is precisely our unique personlities, personal histories and experiences that make treating SSA issues so difficult. But any psychotherapist/psychologist faces this with any patient who has an unwanted behavior or disorder.

I disagree with whole term “reparative” or repair when it comes to SSA for exactly the knee-jerk reaction it gets from people like you, and the misimpression it gives to those who understand little of homosexuality in the first place. The goal of any therapy or course of healing for unwanted SSA is ONLY to uncover and heal past wounds and to find and fulfill, in legitimate ways, unmet needs, especially homo-emotional needs.

It sounds as if you feel the only “cure” is a homosexual turning into a heterosexual. This is flawed thinking on so many levels. Number one homosexuality at its core HAS NOTHING TO DO with a person’s desire for sex, while heterosexual development certainly does. Secondly, heterosexual attractions DO NOT replace homosexual attractions in individuals who are “cured.” (The very idea of being cured sets many up for failure - an alcoholic for instance never claims to be cured. He identifies himself as an alcoholic for life, even after his desire has diminished, his behavior been altered and his past wounds and causes been addressed etc.)

In summation if a person seeks therapy for the express purpose of changing his or her homosexual desire into heterosexual desire, he is setting himself up for failure. The biggest problem I see with gay activists and their criticism of therapy is that they refuse to acknowledge that an ex-gay is really anyone who has left the lifestyle, has acknowledged that his SSA is not a natural part of him but a product of past emotional wounds and unmet needs, and through prayer, therapy and support works to diminish his/her unhealthy attraction to the same sex while striving to fulfill his emotional needs in acceptable and healthy manners.
Peace and prayers,
Carla

 

[Holly3278]

alright, this is my first thread, please bear with me if I made some mistake in placing it in this section or make some structure mistake.

my question is, why the catholic church sees homosexuality as a sin.

I know that passages in the old testament are often evoked to solidify this, but this always made me wonder if people ever realize that the same parts of the old testament also tell you not to eat pork/ shrimps or not to wear clothing woven from two different threads. I would like to know you can pick just selected paragraphs and ignore the rest. is there some ‘guideline’ book for this? or do you just pick what suits you best?

another thing often mention is that homosexuality is supposed to be unnatural.

well, in that case I can say that no, it’s not. it’s nicely documented for several species of animals (for example black swans). I think black swans are especially interesting in that case because they still show the wish to reproduce, while being monogamous in same-sex relationships. We have recorded cases of black swans stealing eggs from ‘normal’ swan couple to breed and raise them themselves. the explanation of this would be that is homosexuality is genetic. now if it is genetic, it’s not a things one’s own choice and as such it also can’t be sin.

Now I would like to know how the catholic church argues against this.

on a side note, no, I’m not catholic, I’m halfway between agnostic and Buddhist.
you don’t need to pray for me about this, I’m quite happy the way I am. if it sends me to hell, well I’d have interesting question to nag the devil with, then.

Homosexuality is indeed unnatural. It is unnatural for humans. It may or may not be natural for animals but that does not matter. Humans are not animals and should act like humans, not animals.

 

[joannazenobia]

In my personal opinion, no one will ever find the true cause of homosexuality. Like previously mentioned, it isn’t so black and white. From my point of view, homosexuality is a symptom of a much bigger problem that has nothing to do with homosexuality but everything to do with what is wrong in our society today and I do believe it starts in childhood, and sometimes in very subtle ways.

Because there is a clear lack of the most important commandment Jesus gave all of us and its a no brainer, you’d think it would be so easy, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, but how many of us actually act on it? How many of us actually know what true love really means? Now its all about “my rights”, the “what about me?” syndrome. There are no more “socially acceptable morals and values”. The line is becoming blurred and unfortunately its the children who get pushed to the side. Children need love and be shown love, and they are not.

We as parents are always on the go, there are tons of little details that always appear more important than the most important one and that is STOP! Turn to your kids, and hug them and show them you love them with all your heart as God loves us ten to a hundred times a day. But so many don’t get that even in well to do homes. I know, because my oldest tells her daddy she misses her mommy all the time especially on the few days I do work. I haven’t left? I’m at home 80% of the time, but I’ve been too busy with the new baby, the house, and all these details to notice my child needs me to hold her, to hug her, to pay attention to her and her needs, not my own. She is growing like a weed before my eyes, and talks like she’s going on 16 not 6 that sometimes it seems like ‘well, I’m done, she doesn’t’ need me anymore’. But she does.

My priest is an old priest from the Eastern Europe block who comes form former Czechoslovakia and seen much suffering in his life. He says that here in the US, in richest country in the world, he is amazed how much suffering he sees in the faces of children everyday in every family that walk into the church, poor, rich, big, small.

That is why we have this problem. Because the most important commandment is being ignored by everyone.

And that is something that is way beyond science’s ability to explain.

This is a really interesting discussion.

 

[CarlaOLS]

Beautifully put Joann.

BTW - hug her now, when she turns 16 she may not let you. At least for a while.

 

[Portrait]

Portrait - I appreciate your view as I too when I first read what the Catechism said felt the Church had white-coated their words. The Catholic Medical Association explained it better I felt. http://www.cathmed.org/assets/files/H&H%20Selection.pdf
On closer scrutiny, I saw the Church’s words were meant to be exact, and she was very careful in her word choice.

When she uses the word intrinsic for instance. The **act **is intrinsically disorderd - it is disordered in its essence and origin. Now she can’t very well say that of the attraction for obvious reasons. The attraction’s origin is not disordered but natural in its essence - that is, needing affection, acceptance, affirmation and love from the same sex is entirely natural and healthy. Normally we have those natural and ordered desires fulfilled though our paternal, maternal and fraternal love of our family, friends and peers.

Unfortunately the very exact wording can be nmisread and misused by those in the Church and outside to suggest that having a sexual attraction is normal or acceptable.

Does that help?

Dear Carla,

Thankyou for the above post and sorry for not responding to you sooner but I have been otherwise engaged.

Your comments help in so far as I now appreciate better the points you are making, but I am afraid that I still cannot concur with them. However you are surely correct when you state that the “exact wording can be misread and misused by those in the church and outside to suggest having a sexual attraction is normal or acceptable”(my emphasis).

First, the homosexual attraction, or as you refer to it SSA, is clearly anything but natural since it has its origin in the Fall. We know from Sacred Scripture that sin affects every part of human nature and every area of human experience. Now the effects of sin are physical, psychological and emotional as well as moral and spiritual. Thus just as the natural creation has been spoilt by the Fall and the curse (Gen. 3:17-19), so also people’s bodies have been affected; genetic disorders, physical disability and hereditary disease all have to be traced back to the disorder in the created realm which was introduced as a consequence of the original human disobedience.

Second, homosexuality in terms of orientation, attraction and temptation have to be seen as one of the effects of the Fall. This I believe is what many posters on this thread are failing to appreciate. In saying this I am not singling out homosexuals in any particular or unfair way. Clearly all of mankind is deeply affected by the fall; sin has corrupted the hearts and desires of us all, for “none is righteous, no, not one” (Rom. 3: 10). Moreover, St. Paul who speaks of “dishonourable passions” and “unnatural relations” (Rom. 1: 26), goes on to speak of people becoming “filled with all manner of wickedness” (v. 29) and specifies all sorts of other evils which are, alas, the common heritage of mankind.

Now if your reading of what our Church Catechism is saying is correct, then how can we square it with what I have said above regarding the effects of the Fall? Please forgive me if I have misconstrued or misunderstood what you have said; there is indeed much clear blue water between us on this issue inasmuch as we both believe that homosexual acts are a sin and violation of the moral law of God. However, surely homosexual attraction itself is likewise decidedly disordered, unnatural and sinful since it has its origin in the effects of the Fall. Accordingly it cannot have anything to do with “needing affection, acceptance, affirmation and love from the same sex” as these are, as you quite rightly state, “entirely natural and healthy”.

Finally, if you call homosexual acts “acts of grave depravity” (para. 2357) that is tantamount to calling them sins - actually some would even say that these are interchangeable terms. Be that as it may St. Paul refers to “sodomites” as “sinners” (see I Tim. 1: 9,10). Now would it not be more “exact” and also more in accord with Sacred Scripture to call them sins? Sorry if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here, but our Church does seem to have studiously avoided the use of the word sin in relation to homosexuality. Furthermore I just do not see how the interests of clarity and precision have been best served by such avoidance.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

In my personal opinion, no one will ever find the true cause of homosexuality. Like previously mentioned, it isn’t so black and white. From my point of view, homosexuality is a symptom of a much bigger problem that has nothing to do with homosexuality but everything to do with what is wrong in our society today and I do believe it starts in childhood, and sometimes in very subtle ways.

Because there is a clear lack of the most important commandment Jesus gave all of us and its a no brainer, you’d think it would be so easy, “Love your neighbor as yourself”, but how many of us actually act on it? How many of us actually know what true love really means? Now its all about “my rights”, the “what about me?” syndrome. There are no more “socially acceptable morals and values”. The line is becoming blurred and unfortunately its the children who get pushed to the side. Children need love and be shown love, and they are not.

We as parents are always on the go, there are tons of little details that always appear more important than the most important one and that is STOP! Turn to your kids, and hug them and show them you love them with all your heart as God loves us ten to a hundred times a day. But so many don’t get that even in well to do homes. I know, because my oldest tells her daddy she misses her mommy all the time especially on the few days I do work. I haven’t left? I’m at home 80% of the time, but I’ve been too busy with the new baby, the house, and all these details to notice my child needs me to hold her, to hug her, to pay attention to her and her needs, not my own. She is growing like a weed before my eyes, and talks like she’s going on 16 not 6 that sometimes it seems like ‘well, I’m done, she doesn’t’ need me anymore’. But she does.

My priest is an old priest from the Eastern Europe block who comes form former Czechoslovakia and seen much suffering in his life. He says that here in the US, in richest country in the world, he is amazed how much suffering he sees in the faces of children everyday in every family that walk into the church, poor, rich, big, small.

That is why we have this problem. Because the most important commandment is being ignored by everyone.

And that is something that is way beyond science’s ability to explain.

This is a really interesting discussion.

Dear jonnazenobia,

As Christians we are most definitely not in the dark as to “the true cause of homosexuality”. The world is not now as it originally came from the good hands of God. Mankind has rebelled and fallen into a state of sin and misery. We are born into an already fallen imperfect world and we bring an already corrupted human nature with us (see, for example, Psalm 51: 5). Our personalities are complexes of all kinds of sinful desires. No aspect of our humanity has escaped unscathed. Our sexuality is not immune. Thus homosexuality in terms of orientation, attraction and temptation must be seen as one of the effects of the Fall (please see my post to “CarlaOLS” above for a further explanation).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Lynxdk]

Now would it not be more “exact” and also more in accord with Sacred Scripture to call them sins? Sorry if I have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here, but our Church does seem to have studiously avoided the use of the word sin in relation to homosexuality. Furthermore I just do not see how the interests of clarity and precision have been best served by such avoidance.

While I tend to disagree with Carla for various other reasons, we could consider that abusive parents often get that way because they’re living out what they learned, we could be inexact with that and simply say… well, we know the Root cause… or we could pay better attention to the details of what might have specifically caused a person to become an abusive parent and do what we can to minimize and heal the specific damage that occurred to a person to help them be better parents, which is to address a variety of factors that include “physical, psychological and emotional as well as moral and spiritual.”

How would it be more “exact”, and how would it serve the “interests of clarity and precision”, to call child abuse a Sin just because it is when there are sometimes causes that we can know and address in more precise detail?