Explain to me, using Church documents or teachings, how a homosexual relationship in itself is committing a mortal sin. What does that even mean? Two gay people love each other and decide to be committed to one another. Is that grave matter? What is?
The term “homosexual relationship” clouds the question. A “relationship” is not itself an act, but may be dotted with or permeated with sinful acts. I suggest you come at this from the direction of post #98.
One could make a similar argument with respect to a man and woman who are not having sex, but are emotionally, romantically involved to the point of serious temptation to intercourse. One would not advise such a couple to cohabitate. One would advise them to pursue courtship with an intent to marry.
One could make the further observation that, say, an adulterous relationship need not be devoid of good acts. The kindnesses shown by the adulterer to his mistress may be truly good acts. What a shame that those kindnesses are not shown in the absence of adultery (be it in the mind or the body).
This.
This makes no sense. A relationship is not an action. It’s not a thought or word. It simply comprises multiple aspects. As wrong as those situations you submitted may be immoral, it is only quickhand speech to refer to a relationship as “wrong.”
Those are links to pages with additional links. One on the general discussion of marriage, one on homosexuality. It tells me nothing.
And here’s the rub. You are proposing that a homosexual couple who do not have sex still cannot pursue a relationship. At the end of the day, the Church’s teaching and pastoral goals result in homosexual persons leading extremely lonely lives. Where is their place in the church? They cannot become priests and they cannot have families: They cannot even live with someone they love, EVEN IF they promise not to have sex.
Some people will probably say that a life of misery is those certain groups’ “cross to bear”
Haven’t heard that one before.Some people will probably say that a life of misery is those certain groups’ “cross to bear”
Friendships are important in life. I think that friends are nearly a necessity. Romance is not a necessity. I was reading an article lately by a gay man who found that he was most happy when not engaged in romantic or specifically gay relationships:
I think the idea is that they would find fulfillment in other ways, not that they are intended to bear crosses and be unhappy. No one is intended to bear a cross. Is the expectation that Jesus suffered so we must also?Some people will probably say that a life of misery is those certain groups’ “cross to bear”
Earlier in a post, you mentioned your definition of “homosexual relationship” as being one that includes or is open to sexual activity.
So truly, which is it? If your position is that two homosexuals are able to be what is essentially heterosexual life partners, I don’t necessarily disagree with you. I think it could be an imprudent and potentially spiritually dangerous decision to live together, but aside from that, so long as it remains chaste, I wouldn’t see anything wrong with that.
Yeah, your life must be so miserable.Some people will probably say that a life of misery is those certain groups’ “cross to bear”
Did Catholics of the Early Church (1) Know of homosexual orientation and (2) Were they familiar with committed, homosexual relationships of partners of the same status? I think not.