G
goofyjim
Guest
Just too add my two cents, I personally don’t think God is going to cast into hell a nonpracticing homosexual so all this bickering back and forth over disordered desire is superfluous.
- Status
S
Sure
Guest
Amen!
At a certain point it doesn’t matter. Whether the inclination is more disordered than another inclination doesn’t really have much meaning.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I didn’t say anything about lust requiring an “overt act.” However, it is not the same as sexual attraction. The natural feeling of attraction toward another is not necessarily a “desire for sexual pleasure.” If I see a beautiful woman, I may feel some attraction to her beauty, but that doesn’t mean I desire sexual pleasure from her…that’s where lust comes in.
The reason this distinction is important is that I’m assuming the same natural attraction happens for someone who is homosexually oriented. Just because a man sees another man and is attracted to him, does not mean that he desires sexual pleasure from the other man.
This is the teaching I have understood from priests and bishops explaining the Catechism. To dwell on another person’s physical assets and then fantasize (however briefly) about them sexually is lust. That is not the same as basic attraction.
R
rlg94086
Guest
It is not evasion. It is a rewording of the same concept. “Self-fulfillment” is the same as “isolated from procreative and unitive purpose.”
R
rlg94086
Guest
Some people don’t agree with your personal opinion goofyjim, that’s why this thread was created - to hash out those understandings. To say that the discussion is superfluous to how God judges could apply to every thread on CAF. We are here to discuss and learn from each other.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Agangbern,
Brianwalden is correct in his summary of the purpose of the Catechism. You and I have a different understanding of lust and sexual attraction, even though we both believe in the teaching of the Catechism. You are accusing Brian and I of evading and obfiscating the Catechism, but that is not what we are doing.
You seem to equate any sexual attraction with lust. That IMO is overly scupulous. When a beautiful woman comes my way, the attraction is there. I must control my thoughts to prevent lusting. I must further avoid acting on any lust and committing the sin of adultery. The same occurs for those with same sex attraction. The attraction is there. They must control their thoughts to prevent from lusting. They must further avoid acting on that lust and committing the sin of homosexual acts.
It’s really pretty simple…conceptually. The hard part is in avoiding sin. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, we are all able.
B
brianwalden
Guest
rlg has summed up my thoughts pretty well. I’d just like to add that I love the Catechism. I think everyone should read it from cover to cover and abide by it. But the Magisterium is the entirety of the teachings of the Church from the beginning of time until the end of time. The Catechism is, by necessity, a summary of these teachings.
The point of faith isn’t to follow the Catechism number by number, it’s to follow Christ. Be careful not to miss the forest for the trees. And for anyone who thinks I’m advocating not following the Catechism, let me add: be careful not to miss the trees for the forest.
A
agangbern
Guest
Ha ha ha! That is a great rewording of catechism 2351! But I don’t believe they are the same. So we must probably have to differ in this particular matter.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Okay. We can disagree. But, I have a question for you. If you are seeking sexual pleasure “isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” then what are you seeking it for other than self-fulfillment?
A
agangbern
Guest
Yes, we are to follow Christ. But the scriptures, the catechism included, teaches us where Christ is so that we may follow him!
How can one follow Christ if he does not listen to the words written in the scriptures concerning him?
R
rlg94086
Guest
Be careful of your wording. The Catechism is not scripture. Your sentence should have stated “the scriptures and the Catechism…”
Please point out where Brian or I have said people should not pay heed to the words written in scripture or the Catechism.
A
agangbern
Guest
It is not seeking self-fulfillment but giving in to morally disordered sexual desire.Okay. We can disagree. But, I have a question for you. If you are seeking sexual pleasure “isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” then what are you seeking it for other than self-fulfillment?
R
rlg94086
Guest
Those aren’t contradictory things. Is the morally disordered sexual desire fulfilling someone else or the self?
B
brianwalden
Guest
Ok, let’s try to make this real simple. Here’s the sentence in question: Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
“isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” isn’t separate from “when sought for itself” - it describes more clearly what saught for itself means. Rlg just paraphrased saught for itself as self-fulfilling. He isn’t using the term self-fulfilling in opposition to procreative and unitive; instead they both refer to the same thing.
“isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes” isn’t separate from “when sought for itself” - it describes more clearly what saught for itself means. Rlg just paraphrased saught for itself as self-fulfilling. He isn’t using the term self-fulfilling in opposition to procreative and unitive; instead they both refer to the same thing.
R
Ruthie
Guest
I think the comprehension problem here results from two different definitions of “self-fulfillment.” I can see how this arises. The marital act as I understand it fulfills both spouses, and fulfills God’s requirement for it to be unitive, exclusive, and procreative. In this sense, fulfillment is good!
RLG is using “self-fulfillment” in an exclusionary sense, i.e. following CCC 2351’s use of “sought for itself.”
I tend to write more earthily; I’d say that CCC 2351 is talking about one person’s selfish desire to have an orgasm, no matter how it’s obtained. That covers both “disordered desire” and “inordinate enjoyment.” (If you define “good sex” purely by the number and/or strength of orgasms, that’s inordinate enjoyment.) And it widens the discussion to include masturbation.
The desire to masturbate, the desire to fornicate and/or commit adultery, and the desire for homosexual sex all come under the heading of lust. I’ll cite CCC 2351 again:
**"***Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
Without the wedding vows, sex between heterosexuals is neither unitive nor exclusive. Even if the couple is engaged, it doesn’t have the real fullness of unitive and exclusive sex, because God is excluded. The sacrament of marriage brings God into the covenant.
Masturbation is neither unitive nor procreative. It’s the epitome of “sought for itself.”
Homosexual sex may *claim *to be unitive - but it’s certainly not procreative. And it’s also - how shall I put it? - improper use of equipment.
We all have sinful thoughts from time to time. If the thought arises, and we immediately squash it, we have not consented to it, and thus have not sinned. If the thought arises, and we allow it to develop, we have consented. That’s what makes it sinful - the consent. (That’s been stated over and over in the AAA forum.)
That is why the tendency towards same-sex attraction is not sinful in itself; it’s no more sinful than the tendency to opposite-sex attraction. It’s what we do with it when the tendency expresses itself in thought: have I consented to this attraction? If not, no sin.
RLG is using “self-fulfillment” in an exclusionary sense, i.e. following CCC 2351’s use of “sought for itself.”
I tend to write more earthily; I’d say that CCC 2351 is talking about one person’s selfish desire to have an orgasm, no matter how it’s obtained. That covers both “disordered desire” and “inordinate enjoyment.” (If you define “good sex” purely by the number and/or strength of orgasms, that’s inordinate enjoyment.) And it widens the discussion to include masturbation.
The desire to masturbate, the desire to fornicate and/or commit adultery, and the desire for homosexual sex all come under the heading of lust. I’ll cite CCC 2351 again:
**"***Lust *is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes."
Without the wedding vows, sex between heterosexuals is neither unitive nor exclusive. Even if the couple is engaged, it doesn’t have the real fullness of unitive and exclusive sex, because God is excluded. The sacrament of marriage brings God into the covenant.
Masturbation is neither unitive nor procreative. It’s the epitome of “sought for itself.”
Homosexual sex may *claim *to be unitive - but it’s certainly not procreative. And it’s also - how shall I put it? - improper use of equipment.
We all have sinful thoughts from time to time. If the thought arises, and we immediately squash it, we have not consented to it, and thus have not sinned. If the thought arises, and we allow it to develop, we have consented. That’s what makes it sinful - the consent. (That’s been stated over and over in the AAA forum.)
That is why the tendency towards same-sex attraction is not sinful in itself; it’s no more sinful than the tendency to opposite-sex attraction. It’s what we do with it when the tendency expresses itself in thought: have I consented to this attraction? If not, no sin.
A
agangbern
Guest
Who said catechism is not scripture? If I should be careful, I hope that advise also sink into everyone here.
A
agangbern
Guest
Yes, speaking of tendency, I agree with you, Ruthie. But tendency is certainly different from desire. When a person desires, it implies consent to it because he has control of his desires. If he decides not to desire, he could very well do it.That could be done because man is a rational being.
A
agangbern
Guest
In Christian mentality, self-fulfillment is achieved only within the bounds of morality. A Christian does not talk of self-fulfillment apart from morality. Anything morally disordered is not self-fulfillment to a Christian.
B
brianwalden
Guest
I see, it looks like a confusion over the words. By self-fulfilling rlg meant selfish. Given the way you’re using the word self-fulfilling I would also disagree with rlg’s statement.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Me too…I will now commence in arguing with myself.
- Status