I guess you are right. I looked up the word scripture in Websters, and the Catechism is scripture. I was taught to always distinguish Holy Scripture (the Bible) from other non-canonized works. Sorry for the misplaced admonishment.Who said catechism is not scripture? If I should be careful, I hope that advise also sink into everyone here.
Agangbern,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.
In a limited sense, I agree with you rlg because same sex attraction, as explained here by one poster, has broader meaning than desire. He said that a person could be attracted to the same sex in the way he/she dresses; or he could be attracted to him to idolize him. That attraction does not make him/her a homosexual.So, I think we are probably in 100% agreement about someone who has same sex attraction. They can live a chaste life through self-control. I think the difference between us, is that you don’t consider them “homosexual” unless they actually act on their same sex attraction. Most people, including those who struggle with SSA, still consider them homosexual; some even use the term gay, even though they don’t subscribe to the active gay lifestyle.
So, to sum up the point of the thread: sexual attraction is not the same as desire and therefore not the same as lust. Regardless of the sexual attraction (opposite or same sex), they are not sins in themselves. They become sin if the individual entertains “disordered desire.” Are we in agreement?
Then, indeed we are in agreement, as the statement you made is equally valid if you remove the words “with the same sex.” We are all called to chastity.In a limited sense, I agree with you rlg because same sex attraction, as explained here by one poster, has broader meaning than desire. He said that a person could be attracted to the same sex in the way he/she dresses; or he could be attracted to him to idolize him. That attraction does not make him/her a homosexual.
But when that attraction is a desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex**, then that kind of attraction, as pointed out in catechism 2351, is morally disordered, even if that desire is not outwardly acted upon by the person**.
If the words “with the same sex” above should be removed, then the sentence would read thus: “But when that attraction is a desire for sexual pleasure____then that kind of attraction, as pointed out in catechism 2351, is morally disordered, even if that desire is not outwardly acted upon by the person.”Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
In a limited sense, I agree with you rlg because same sex attraction, as explained here by one poster, has broader meaning than desire. He said that a person could be attracted to the same sex in the way he/she dresses; or he could be attracted to him to idolize him. That attraction does not make him/her a homosexual.
But when that attraction is a desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex, then that kind of attraction, as pointed out in catechism 2351, is morally disordered, even if that desire is not outwardly acted upon by the person.
Then, indeed we are in agreement, as the statement you made is equally valid if you remove the words “with the same sex.” We are all called to chastity.
Big deal. Add the words "isolated from procreative purpose. My point is that lust, whether it is same sex or opposite sex oriented is a sin. It is no greater a sin when directed toward someone of the same sex than it is for someone of the opposite sex.If the words “with the same sex” above should be removed, then the sentence would read thus: “But when that attraction is a desire for sexual pleasure____then that kind of attraction, as pointed out in catechism 2351, is morally disordered, even if that desire is not outwardly acted upon by the person.”
The idea is changed to a stricter one because it then includes all kinds of desires for sexual pleasure, including the sexual desire of the husband to his wife. That I would wish to take exception, because I don’t believe that the husband’s sexual desire for his wife is morally disordered. The desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex is the one that is morally disordered because, according to catechism 2351, it is isolated from procreative purpose.
Thanks rlg! We were simply discussing our views about the topic without intent to judge any person here. Not us, but God alone, through his words is the one who judges.Big deal. Add the words "isolated from procreative purpose. My point is that lust, whether it is same sex or opposite sex oriented is a sin. It is no greater a sin when directed toward someone of the same sex than it is for someone of the opposite sex.
That said, please judge people as you wish agangbern. I’m not going to argue with you about it anymore. As I am not struggling with same sex attraction, it is of no difference to me. Those who are struggling with same sex attraction could probably care less about your particular understanding of the Catechism.