sexual sin

[alsa]

This question assumes that homosexuality is a worse sin than pre marital sex. There are many Catholics with that opinion.

So under that assumption I was curious about a special case of a homosexual act. Lets say a man has pre martial sex with what he assumes to be a women. But the women is in fact a former man, transsexual. Has that man who was unknowingly involved with the transsexual committed a homosexual sin?

I am curious because this issue seems to be a modern issue and the bible would not anything to say about it. What is your opinion on this?

 

[austenbosten]

Well sexual sin is sexual sin no matter what. Doesn’t matter if it’s sex with yourself or someone or people of the same sex, opposite, or both…sin is sin.

If however a man has sex with a transsexual while married to them and was not aware until after the marriage, I think the Church will grant the man an annulment.

 

[alsa]

Good answer. But I was just assuming things getting to the marriage level is too far fetched.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

Good answer. But I was just assuming things getting to the marriage level is too far fetched.

Nothing is outside the realm of possibility these days, unfortunately.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

The Church forbids any “changing sexes”. Transgender, transsexual… whatever you want to call it. That stuff is always and everywhere evil. Malum semper et ubique.

God makes us men or women. And in my view it would be rather difficult for a person who changed their gender to be saved. If a person does this and doesn’t reverse what they did before they died, then that is a sign of unrepentance right there. I mean, I’d imagine most priests for penance would tell these people to physically undo what they’d done; if at all able.

To answer your question directly. Two men participated in a sexual sin. So both men would be guilty of sodomy.

 

[thewanderer]

The Church forbids any “changing sexes”. Transgender, transsexual… whatever you want to call it. That stuff is always and everywhere evil. Malum semper et ubique.

God makes us men or women. And in my view it would be rather difficult for a person who changed their gender to be saved. If a person does this and doesn’t reverse what they did before they died, then that is a sign of unrepentance right there. I mean, I’d imagine most priests for penance would tell these people to physically undo what they’d done; if at all able.

To answer your question directly. Two men participated in a sexual sin. So both men would be guilty of sodomy.

except that one man was completely unaware of this fact. So instead of sodomy he would only be guilty of fornication. You aren’t held responsible for sinful acts that you unkowingly commit.

 

[michelleds]

God makes us men or women. And in my view it would be rather difficult for a person who changed their gender to be saved. If a person does this and doesn’t reverse what they did before they died, then that is a sign of unrepentance right there. I mean, I’d imagine most priests for penance would tell these people to physically undo what they’d done; if at all able.

To answer your question directly. Two men participated in a sexual sin. So both men would be guilty of sodomy.

Unfortunately, you are wrong on several counts. Repentance does not require a “reversal”.

CCC 1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).

CCC 1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”

 

[DexUK]

This question assumes that homosexuality is a worse sin than pre marital sex. There are many Catholics with that opinion.

Sorry, but homosexuality itself is morally neutral. There is no sin in the sexual orientation. Just the actions.

So under that assumption I was curious about a special case of a homosexual act. Lets say a man has pre martial sex with what he assumes to be a women. But the women is in fact a former man, transsexual. Has that man who was unknowingly involved with the transsexual committed a homosexual sin?

I am curious because this issue seems to be a modern issue and the bible would not anything to say about it. What is your opinion on this?

No action is a sin if the person committing the action is unaware that it is a sin at the time of it being committed.

Premarital sexual activity of any kind is, as has been mentioned, fornication. The Church, since it can only approve of sexual activity within marriage whereby it is ordered in its natural state towards the creation of children (whether or not the man and the woman are capable of conceiving, which is a different matter). Therefore any other type of activity, within or without marriage is not acceptable. There aren’t any grades. Mortal sin is mortal sin. You can’t be only ‘partly mortally sinful’ any more than a lady may be only ‘partly pregnant’.

 

[alsa]

except that one man was completely unaware of this fact. So instead of sodomy he would only be guilty of fornication. You aren’t held responsible for sinful acts that you unkowingly commit.

I guess this gets to the heart of my question…on the one hand this man still lusted over another man and had relations with him. This is not arguable. But on the other hand he assumed he was with a women. I want to avoid the discussion of whether one sexual sin is greater than the other…our society clearly thinks so (ie pedophilia, bestiality etc…) and homosexuality was in the same boat not too long ago (still is in some countries).

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Unfortunately, you are wrong on several counts. Repentance does not require a “reversal”.

CCC 1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).

CCC 1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused.62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”

Even if they are saved. They will be in Heaven what they were born on Earth. If you are born a man or a woman on Earth, that is what you will be in Heaven.

And I’m not wrong in saying that most priests probably tell these people to reverse what they’ve done to their bodies. If I become a priest that is certainly what I will tell them to do.

Btw that first Canon seems to back what I said. I’ll bold the parts I’m talking about.

A radical reorientation? They should re-orient themselves. Of their WHOLE lives. Not just the spiritual aspects of their lives, but their WHOLE lives… that includes their physical body. Their physical body should radically be reoriented.

They should be willing to change their life. They should be willing to physically undo the unnatural things they’ve done to their body.

Again, I already alluded to it. But there are no transgendered people in Heaven. Heaven doesn’t have people who are blind, deaf, mute, or mentally impaired. Heaven doesn’t have people with Leprosy or any other disease. There is no disease in Heaven. So why would there be transgendered people there?

You might well could be transgendered on Earth. But that is an abomination to God. You can’t be transgendered in Heaven.

 

[manualman]

The beginning assertion is the very root of why christians are LOSING the culture war over sexual morality in the public square. Those who fornicate are committing just as serious a sin as those who commit sodomy. The rampant hypocrisy of heterosexual people that are living in unrepentant sin, but condemning the unrepentant sexual sins of others stinks to high heavens.

Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are all totally tied together inseparable. When people try to chop one or more of these three aspects of human sexuality off from the whole, the entire thing is badly damaged. This basic root teaching underlies why catholicism has a moral problem with ALL the following things:
adultery, fornication, sodomy, contraception, in-vitro fertilization, divorce/remarriage, sterilization, masturbation …

See the pattern? Every one of these sins is a sin precisely because they are attempts to mutilate human sexuality into its constituent parts instead of the whole (which is so much more than the sum of its parts). Attempting to rank one that you aren’t inclined towards as more grave than those you ARE inclined to is just bad old human rationalizing.

 

[alsa]

The beginning assertion is the very root of why christians are LOSING the culture war over sexual morality in the public square. Those who fornicate are committing just as serious a sin as those who commit sodomy. The rampant hypocrisy of heterosexual people that are living in unrepentant sin, but condemning the unrepentant sexual sins of others stinks to high heavens.

Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are all totally tied together inseparable. When people try to chop one or more of these three aspects of human sexuality off from the whole, the entire thing is badly damaged. This basic root teaching underlies why catholicism has a moral problem with ALL the following things:
adultery, fornication, sodomy, contraception, in-vitro fertilization, divorce/remarriage, sterilization, masturbation …

See the pattern? Every one of these sins is a sin precisely because they are attempts to mutilate human sexuality into its constituent parts instead of the whole (which is so much more than the sum of its parts). Attempting to rank one that you aren’t inclined towards as more grave than those you ARE inclined to is just bad old human rationalizing.

I agree with this point completely. Sex should be between two married people. But I also believe that a person should be held accountable to ALL the sins he commits in a categorized manner. So if a person commits fornication AND sodomy he should repent to both sins. Agreed?

 

[alsa]

The beginning assertion is the very root of why christians are LOSING the culture war over sexual morality in the public square. Those who fornicate are committing just as serious a sin as those who commit sodomy. The rampant hypocrisy of heterosexual people that are living in unrepentant sin, but condemning the unrepentant sexual sins of others stinks to high heavens.

Marriage, sexual intimacy and babies are all totally tied together inseparable. When people try to chop one or more of these three aspects of human sexuality off from the whole, the entire thing is badly damaged. This basic root teaching underlies why catholicism has a moral problem with ALL the following things:
adultery, fornication, sodomy, contraception, in-vitro fertilization, divorce/remarriage, sterilization, masturbation …

See the pattern? Every one of these sins is a sin precisely because they are attempts to mutilate human sexuality into its constituent parts instead of the whole (which is so much more than the sum of its parts). Attempting to rank one that you aren’t inclined towards as more grave than those you ARE inclined to is just bad old human rationalizing.

I agree with this point completely. Sex should be between two married people. But I also believe that a person should be held accountable to ALL the sins he commits in a categorized manner. So if a person commits fornication AND sodomy he should repent to both sins. Agreed?

 

[ValPal]

This question assumes that homosexuality is a worse sin than pre marital sex. There are many Catholics with that opinion.

A mortal sin is a mortal sin. With that said, the wording in the Bible regarding homosexuality is very stern.

So under that assumption I was curious about a special case of a homosexual act. Lets say a man has pre martial sex with what he assumes to be a women. But the women is in fact a former man, transsexual. Has that man who was unknowingly involved with the transsexual committed a homosexual sin?

I am curious because this issue seems to be a modern issue and the bible would not anything to say about it. What is your opinion on this?

Well, the first issue is that the parties committed premarital sex, so the question is not of sin, but how many sins.

Let’s put it in another context to eliminate some of the sins. Say a man marries a person that he believes to be a woman that really isn’t. Objectively, it would be sinful to have sex with the person. However, since the person person was tricked into having sex with this person, there was no intent at all to sin. Obviously once this person found out the truth, the sex would have to stop.