Serious doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality

[LongingSoul]

So clearly stated…and so true! And that has been my whole contention. Not singling out SMGS. But simply pointing out as you did here the grave damage that this can have on someone who’s struggling. I believe it was also you that made the comparison to an alcoholic. I’ve known them personally who have struggled with this, and who appear to have it conquered, only to have one fall, one slip-up make them tumble into a seemingly hopeless setback. And some never recover from it. And I personally know someone like this.

Peace, Mark

Thomas Aquinas himself evokes the image of wine to convey the nature of lust. He says of lust… *The cause is more powerful than its effect. Now wine is forbidden on account of lust, according to the saying of the Apostle (Ephesians 5:18), "Be not drunk with wine wherein is lust " Therefore lust is forbidden.

Further, it is numbered among the works of the flesh: Galatians 5:19

The more necessary a thing is, the more it behooves one to observe the order of reason in its regard; wherefore the more sinful it becomes if the order of reason be forsaken. Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin. *

So you’re in good company, estesbob!

 

[Thorns]

Yes, if I’m having sex, I’m having sex. If I’m doing something else, I’m doing something else. If that’s making out, that’s making out. Whatever happened to just slowing down and enjoying things with one’s girlfriend? Why does everything have to be about sex? Why can’t you just be happy in the moment that she’s smiling and that you’re closer as a team? Why are people so corrupted in the mind sexually?

No, the sex IS the problem. So no sex, no lusting. Got it, and I won’t do it. I’ve already had a relationship where I had to do that, and it didn’t bother me a single iota. I don’t need sex to take care of someone or to be happy.

Sure it is. Why wouldn’t it be?

Thats incorrect. One can commit lust without ever talking to a person, knowing them, or ever making physical contact with them, i.e. oogling pictures online, people watching etc. Sex is a problem, not the only problem. Lust is a separate sin.

And about you having self control, thats great but dont deceive yourself either. St Paul says all it takes is a spark.

 

[SMGS127]

Thats incorrect. One can commit lust without ever talking to a person, knowing them, or ever making physical contact with them, i.e. oogling pictures online, people watching etc. Sex is a problem, not the only problem. Lust is a separate sin.

And about you having self control, thats great but dont deceive yourself either. St Paul says all it takes is a spark.

Two things:

A) I said lusting was a problem in the post too; did you skip it by accident?

B) I said this earlier in the thread, but I have personally gone an entire relationship without lusting over my girlfriend already before. Quite the counter to the conservative chorus shouting “gays can’t control their temptations!” Don’t worry; I’m not deceiving myself.

 

[Bookcat]

Can one act according to disordered inclinations or attractions? And it be “ordered”? Does order come from disorder?

I am not just meaning the big unchaste acts that get pointed to. I am meaning other lesser acts than those- which still come from and are acting according to a disordered attraction.

For a guy to engage in “kissing” in a romantic way another guy-- is to act according to that disordered attraction is it not?

(ordered attraction is male for female and the other way around)

I do not see any way in which it could be not doing so. For the attraction is disordered - the desire to kiss the person of the same gender is disordered (they are not the opposite sex).

I am being straight (pun intended) forward here and do not in any way mean any offense in so doing.

And I know that using the theological term disordered risks the wrong impression -but that is the term of art that applies here. It applies here to this as well to anyone be they struggling with SSA or not.

 

[Thorns]

It’s not an occasion of sin for me! Ugh.

Listen. I have an extraordinary high degree of self control. I don’t even engage lust when I make out, unless I’m already having sex during it. So I’m not even remotely in a case of occasion of sin.

Might I add, Im not an alcoholic and being in a bar is not a near occasion of sin to over drink for me. However, I do struggle with lust. It would not be wise for me to hang out in bars with lots of flirty wome, even though the problem for me isnt drinking.

So IMO, maybe making out isnt a near occasion of sin for you, but maybe it is for the person you’re kissing- which is actually another sin, of scandal and of tempting another person. And if the other person gets turned on by that kissing, at what point does it become the near occasion of sin for you? Once its too late, right?That’s why its unwise to bind yourself that way. One eliminates the precursors aka staying out of the near occasion of sin.

 

[SMGS127]

So I’m not going to even respond to any specific person with this post, because I don’t want gay people deceived by their posts on what I have explained in multiple threads. I will recreate it here. What I am proposing is licit for gays is to:

A) Be in a committed, chaste, celibate relationship with one’s partner.

B) Avoid lust at all costs, and do not ever put yourself in a position where you are in near occasion of lust.

C) Use your own personal judgment to know what your limits are, and try to stay shy of them. Remember that your partner may have lower limits than you do, and if they do, make sure to accomodate them so as to not lead your partner into sin.

D) Only kiss or make out if you, like me, know you can specifically do it without lust and your partner can do it without lust. Do not listen to the conservatives on the board who are dangerously suggesting that I am saying it is licit for all gay couples to make out. It is intensely risky for some people, and again, exercise prudential judgment. If it is performed in lust, do not do it.

E) Remember that you will probably want to go further than your limits. Never put yourself in a position that could lead you to possibly superseding them, whether through intoxication or any other means.

F) Remember, most of all, that the conservatives on this board are dead wrong when they claim I am giving you license to do anything. This is dangerous speech, and it is false. Always trust your conscience and never do anything without discerning it in prayer. Remember that not just sex, but lust, are grave matter.

G) Peace be with all of you.

 

[SMGS127]

Might I add, Im not an alcoholic and being in a bar is not a near occasion of sin to over drink for me. However, I do struggle with lust. It would not be wise for me to hang out in bars with lots of flirty wome, even though the problem for me isnt drinking.

So IMO, maybe making out isnt a near occasion of sin for you, but maybe it is for the person you’re kissing- which is actually another sin, of scandal and of tempting another person. And if the other person gets turned on by that kissing, at what point does it become the near occasion of sin for you? Once its too late, right?That’s why its unwise to bind yourself that way. One eliminates the precursors aka staying out of the near occasion of sin.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12158912&postcount=780

See D) in my above post. I am getting rather tired of repeating myself, but for the umpteenth time, I would never do anything that would lead my partner into lust. I would have full communication with my partner over what their limits are, and it is never licit for any person to perform any action that leads them or their partner to lust. Hopefully this is the last freaking time I have to say this.

 

[Bookcat]

And that has been my whole contention.

Right. If someone things that being chaste is only a matter of not doing certain acts and yet continues in other ways to live according to the attraction the foundation while a great start is in complete. Chastity for those with SSA is not only about the larger questions.

As noted above -

Can one act according to disordered inclinations or attractions? And it be “ordered”? Does order come from disorder?

I am not just meaning the big unchaste acts that get pointed to. I am meaning other lesser acts than those- which still come from and are acting according to a disordered attraction.

For a guy to engage in “kissing” in a romantic way another guy-- is to act according to that disordered attraction is it not?

(ordered attraction is male for female and the other way around-- that is the order of creation -the order of the sexes ordered towards marriage and towards procreation…)

The attraction to the same gender is disordered - the desire to kiss the person of the same gender is disordered (they are not the opposite sex) - so such ought not acted upon in thought word or deed. And even if someone claims they are not intending any sexual feeling say kissing such is already not ordered.

We all have various “disorders” to act against - temptations indeed. But such they are not simply temptations.

Instead such is also the material for holiness - a way of the cross yes -but one that can lead to greater holiness. And true life.

 

[SMGS127]

Bookcat, seriously. Spamming is against forum rules.

Also, SSAs are only disordered insofar as they lead to same-sex genital activity or lust.

cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/ministry-ssa_en.pdf

When oriented toward genital activity, this [homosexual] inclination is “objectively disordered.”

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat, seriously. Spamming is against forum rules.

Also, SSAs are only disordered insofar as they lead to same-sex genital activity or lust.

cccb.ca/site/images/stories/pdf/ministry-ssa_en.pdf

I have already answered such.

And please follow the forum rules. Thanks.

 

[Bookcat]

And that has been my whole contention.

Right. If someone thinks that being chaste is only a matter of not doing certain acts and yet continues in other ways to live according to the attraction the foundation while a great start is in complete. Chastity for those with SSA is not only about the larger questions.

As noted above -

Can one act according to disordered inclinations or attractions? And it be “ordered”? Does order come from disorder?

I am not just meaning the big unchaste acts that get pointed to. I am meaning other lesser acts than those- which still come from and are acting according to a disordered attraction.

For a guy to engage in “kissing” in a romantic way another guy-- is to act according to that disordered attraction is it not?

(ordered attraction is male for female and the other way around-- that is the order of creation -the order of the sexes ordered towards marriage and towards procreation…)

The attraction to the same gender is disordered - the desire to kiss the person of the same gender is disordered (they are not the opposite sex) - so such ought not acted upon in thought word or deed. And even if someone claims they are not intending any sexual feeling say kissing such is already not ordered.

We all have various “disorders” to act against - temptations indeed. But such they are not simply temptations…

Instead such is also the material for holiness - a way of the cross yes -but one that can lead to greater holiness. And true life.

 

[SMGS127]

Right. If someone thinks that being chaste is only a matter of not doing certain acts and yet continues in other ways to live according to the attraction the foundation while a great start is in complete. Chastity for those with SSA is not only about the larger questions.

As noted above -

Can one act according to disordered inclinations or attractions? And it be “ordered”? Does order come from disorder?

I am not just meaning the big unchaste acts that get pointed to. I am meaning other lesser acts than those- which still come from and are acting according to a disordered attraction.

For a guy to engage in “kissing” in a romantic way another guy-- is to act according to that disordered attraction is it not?

(ordered attraction is male for female and the other way around-- that is the order of creation -the order of the sexes ordered towards marriage and towards procreation…)

The attraction to the same gender is disordered - the desire to kiss the person of the same gender is disordered (they are not the opposite sex) - so such ought not acted upon in thought word or deed. And even if someone claims they are not intending any sexual feeling say kissing such is already not ordered.

We all have various “disorders” to act against - temptations indeed. But such they are not simply temptations…

Instead such is also the material for holiness - a way of the cross yes -but one that can lead to greater holiness. And true life.

I see you deleted the spam post I was responding to, copied it, started a new post, pasted it, and then pretended like I wasn’t referring to you when I mentioned spamming .

Seriously. Spamming is against forum rules. Stop.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Thomas Aquinas himself evokes the image of wine to convey the nature of lust.

But surely you’re not insinuating that same-sex attraction is only and ever a form of lust? That would be odd, inaccurate, and deeply cynical all at the same time.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Bookcat]

And that has been my whole contention.

Right. If someone thinks that being chaste is only a matter of not doing certain acts and yet continues in other ways to live according to the attraction the foundation while a great start is in complete. Chastity for those with SSA is not only about the larger questions.

As noted above -

Can one act according to disordered inclinations or attractions? And it be “ordered”? Does order come from disorder?

I am not just meaning the big unchaste acts that get pointed to. I am meaning other lesser acts than those- which still come from and are acting according to a disordered attraction.

For a guy to engage in “kissing” in a romantic way another guy-- is to act according to that disordered attraction is it not?

(ordered attraction is male for female and the other way around-- that is the order of creation -the order of the sexes ordered towards marriage and towards procreation…)

The attraction to the same gender is disordered - the desire to kiss the person of the same gender is disordered (they are not the opposite sex) - so such ought not acted upon in thought word or deed. And even if someone claims they are not intending any sexual feeling say kissing such is already not ordered.

We all have various “disorders” to act against - temptations indeed.

Such is the material for holiness - a way of the cross yes -but one that can lead to greater holiness. And true life.

 

[Thorns]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12158912&postcount=780

See D) in my above post. I am getting rather tired of repeating myself, but for the umpteenth time, I would never do anything that would lead my partner into lust. I would have full communication with my partner over what their limits are, and it is never licit for any person to perform any action that leads them or their partner to lust. Hopefully this is the last freaking time I have to say this.

This is just my opinion of course, but I still maintain that having a partner to begin with already rolls out the carpet for temptation. Maybe “not for you” (although if you end up having sex with the partner, that says otherwise), but perhaps for the partner and also perhaps for the people who might observe a partnership/relationship in public, i.e scandal. So even if you are not tenpted, your partner and the public may very well be.

 

[Rin]

Wow!

Yes, wow. There are matters where one can licitly disagree, even with well known apologists. And with priests, be they well known or not. And bishops. Even with popes, actually - except on matters that are defined as dogma that all must hold as true. Catholicism is not a religion where everyone agrees on everything, neither does unity mean uniformity. We do however as Catholics confess to the defined dogma of the Church, and we are in sacramental communion with each other. That is true unity. Cookie cutter solutions to difficult questions are not unity in any true sense of the word. Catholicism is not about looking up instructions in a handbook (remember, the majority of Catholics were illiterate only a few centuries back), but about growing in virtue and holiness, guided by the Church and a well-informed conscience. And sadly, the sense of virtue, in the true sense of the word, has been lost in the modern Church - by “conservatives” as much as “liberals”.

Obviously, there’s the thing called “thinking/feeling along with the Church”, which is our duty - to the best of our ability. On this subject, I do however gladly admit that I may not be “feeling along with the contemporary Church”, especially not the American Church. And it does not worry me one bit - I believe we (the Church Militant) as a culture currently have giant problems with how we handle sexuality, and I believe the solution is to go back and take a look at how Catholic society viewed love, romance and sexuality back before the Puritan (and Jansenist) sex craze. Remember again, this is about interpretation of teaching, not teaching itself.

As for your questions and everything else, I will point to SMGS’ reply, as I couldn’t really have put it better myself.

 

[Bookcat]

I see you deleted the spam post I was responding to, copied it, started a new post, pasted it, and then pretended like I wasn’t referring to you when I mentioned spamming .

Seriously. Spamming is against forum rules. Stop.

I am not spamming.

I am editing.

I re-read my post and sometimes find I did not type it right and so I delete it before someonw reads it and responds quoting it …and re do it. Sometimes it can be quickly edited as normal -but sometimes I remove it and work on it and repost it.

Not the best typist.

And I may also decide that it will not have the right effect or be passed over - that too can be a good reason to delete it. I delete posts all the time. Sometimes I save them and post them later -sometimes post them sooner. I have a bunch of posts I have deleted and saved too.

 

[Rin]

the people who might observe a partnership/relationship in public, i.e scandal.

That would actually not constitute scandal in the true sense of the word. It would constitute not minding one’s own business.

 

[LongingSoul]

So I’m not going to even respond to any specific person with this post, because I don’t want gay people deceived by their posts on what I have explained in multiple threads. I will recreate it here. What I am proposing is licit for gays is to:

A) Be in a committed, chaste, celibate relationship with one’s partner.

B) Avoid lust at all costs, and do not ever put yourself in a position where you are in near occasion of lust.

C) Use your own personal judgment to know what your limits are, and try to stay shy of them. Remember that your partner may have lower limits than you do, and if they do, make sure to accomodate them so as to not lead your partner into sin.

D) Only kiss or make out if you, like me, know you can specifically do it without lust and your partner can do it without lust. Do not listen to the conservatives on the board who are dangerously suggesting that I am saying it is licit for all gay couples to make out. It is intensely risky for some people, and again, exercise prudential judgment. If it is performed in lust, do not do it.

E) Remember that you will probably want to go further than your limits. Never put yourself in a position that could lead you to possibly superseding them, whether through intoxication or any other means.

F) Remember, most of all, that the conservatives on this board are dead wrong when they claim I am giving you license to do anything. This is dangerous speech, and it is false. Always trust your conscience and never do anything without discerning it in prayer. Remember that not just sex, but lust, are grave matter.

G) Peace be with all of you.

You are basically saying that the homosexual inclination is only subjectively disordered. That is, it is only a disordered inclination by virtue of an individuals experience of it?

That is the antithesis Catholic teaching which stresses that it is ***objectively ***disordered. That is, in and of itself disordered.

 

[SMGS127]

I am not spamming.

I am editing.

I re-read my post and sometimes find I did not type it right and so I delete it before someonw reads it and responds quoting it …and re do it. Sometimes it can be quickly edited as normal -but sometimes I remove it and work on it and repost it.

Not the best typist.

You have posted the same, exact post, word-for-word, literally seven times minimum. That is clearly against forum rules, and I am informing you that I will report you every single time in the future that you post the same, exact post. For reference:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=270175

Spamming (multiple or repetitious messages consisting of identical or nearly identical text or links without substantive commentary)

Emphasis mine.