Sinning "the way God intended" more tolerated here?

[WenckebachCath]

I’ve noticed a certain preoccupation and loathing for homosexuals here that does strike me as prejudice. Perhaps it’s the area of the country I live in that influences my attitude, but I don’t have any special dislike of homosexual sin, vs regular old fashioned fornication.

I have two male cousins who practice the gay lifestyle, and other than that, they are wonderful, generous, kind people. I really don’t put homosexuality into a special catagory, in fact, I tend to have more leniency in my own mind for them and their situation. Our Church does say it’s a disorder, which I view as something of a medical disability that impairs the natural course of events and distorts the natural urges.

I view homosexuality on the same level as masturbation. In Freudian terms, they are stuck in arrested sexual development, instead of maturing as they should have. Our Church also terms masturbation as a Grave Disorder. I don’t judge them very harshly and I really don’t see that our Church does.

 

[fix]

I’ve noticed a certain preoccupation and loathing for homosexuals here that does strike me as prejudice…

With all due respect, I find that often speaking the truth on such matters immediately draws accusations of hate, being uncharitable, ect. The truth is many who claim such things simply reject the truth for specific reasons.

It is a sensitive topic these days because so much propaganda has been foisted on our culture that to decipher it all reqiures one to think with the mind of the Church and not the mind of secularistic society.

 

[mosher]

I’ve noticed a certain preoccupation and loathing for homosexuals here that does strike me as prejudice. Perhaps it’s the area of the country I live in that influences my attitude, but I don’t have any special dislike of homosexual sin, vs regular old fashioned fornication.

I have two male cousins who practice the gay lifestyle, and other than that, they are wonderful, generous, kind people. I really don’t put homosexuality into a special catagory, in fact, I tend to have more leniency in my own mind for them and their situation. Our Church does say it’s a disorder, which I view as something of a medical disability that impairs the natural course of events and distorts the natural urges.

I view homosexuality on the same level as masturbation. In Freudian terms, they are stuck in arrested sexual development, instead of maturing as they should have. Our Church also terms masturbation as a Grave Disorder. I don’t judge them very harshly and I really don’t see that our Church does.

You are correct in your disposition on one level in that any mortal sin has the same result - spiritual death. So, if we judge by the ultimate end both fornication and sexual expression between members of the same sex are the same.

However, sexual expression between members of the same sex do in fact hold a different category for multiple reasons. However, to understand this there are a few things in your post that need to be addressed.

First, your usage of disorder is not correct. While in the US we are accustomed to using that term for medical type problems that is not the way the term is being used by the Church. Rather it is moral disorder simply meaning that the act is not ordered to the good. Now, some acts are more grave than others just as a archer can miss the bullseye in varying degrees. With this in mind we must judge that sexual expression between persons of the same sex is a act that is more grave than fornication. This is evident by the nature of the act itself in that it is by its very nature contraceptive and as a result ordered to the destruction of human society. To help see this conclusion imagine a world where such acts became the norm. In one generation the human race would cease to be because procreation would cease. However, in fornication (here defined as sexual expression of persons of the opposite sex outside of marriage) would still have the possibility of procreation. Hence that aspect of the sexual act would still be ordered to its natural end causing it to be less grave than sexual expression between those of the same sex.

So what have we said here:

1. The ultimate end of Mortal sin is the same.
2. Sexual expression between those of the same sex is intrinsically ordered to contraception.
3. Sexual expression between those of the opposite sex is not intrinsically ordered to contraception.
4. The ultimate conclusion of sexual acts that are intrinsically contraception are ordered to the destruction of humanity. Hence intrinsically contraception sexual expression is more grave than other immoral sexual acts that are not intrinsically contraceptive.
5. Sexual expression between those of the same sex is more grave than fornication (as defined above).

As an aside I would not confuse moral treatment of the sin with the way in which one is to threat the person. Judgment of a persons actions is not condemnation of the person in the same sense. Rather it is an act of charity to admonish the sinner in charity.

Also, this treatment was only on a level of the natural moral law (in short). If we were to take it to the level of moral theology it would only be necessary to include the scriptural statements concerning sexual expression of members of the same sex. Scripture explicitly states on many occasions that such acts are more grave than fornication as is evidenced by the punishments associated with each.

 

[bilop]

While it is true that all mortal sins, if unrepented, can deny one salvation, it has been traditionally tought that certain sins are worse than others. Four sins are siad to “cry to heaven for vengeance”.

Therefore, most people holding the traditional view would hold these sins to be especially objectionable.

Q: What are sins that cry to heaven for vengeance and sins against the Holy Spirit?

A: Most Catholics are familiar with the term mortal sin. Mortal sins deprive the soul of grace. They are serious transgressions of God’s law, done freely and deliberately with a clear understanding of what they are. Their result is to deny a soul entrance to heaven.

There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gen. 4:10), sodomy (Gen. 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex. 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (James 5:4).

.

Catholic Answers, This Rock, 1992

 

[manualman]

Hmm, I tend to agree with the analysis of the OP, but not the conclusion.

I don’t think the church or MOST people here want to place much emphasis on homosexual behavior versus heterosexual fornication. I think it SEEMS that way because we have a culture that is in the process of accepting homosexual behavior as ‘natural’ and ‘acceptable’ that is focusing attention on it. I see no corresponding movement to overturn christian teaching on fornication. SURE, there is a MASSIVE movement to simply ignore church teaching on the subject, but I hear very little about attempts to actually justify it on moral grounds. On the contrary, there are many groups attempting to redefine scripture and Tradition in ways that rationalize homosexual conduct. That is an important distinction between the two issues.

I disagree with the poster who says that sodomy is a more serious sin than hetero fornication. The attempt to justify that attitude with an appeal to church teaching on procreation falls ludicrously flat when you actually look at those committing fornication. Remember that contraception is immoral precisely because it not only blocks the procreative function, but in so doing, makes the act not a unitive act of giving, but a selfish act of taking. Fornicators almost universally contracept. So he is treating his ‘partner’ as an object of pleasure, not a lifelong partner to love and lay down his life for.

That is the exact same situation as the man committing homosexual sex. The act is inherently disordered because it is inherently not procreative and therefore not able to produce the unitive aspect God intended for marital sex either. Both problems apply to sodomy and contraceptive fornication.

 

[ktp]

I’ve noticed a certain preoccupation and loathing for homosexuals here that does strike me as prejudice.

I don’t see any preoccupation with homosexuality here. It does tend to come up here in probably exactly the same proportion as it comes up in society in general. One could as well say that the rest of society is preoccupied with it.

As to loathing, I simply don’t see it. I think it is, rather, an issue of a world slowly conditioning us to see any disagreement with homosexuality as ‘loathing’ or ‘hatred.’

It is true that all sin lands us in the same place, but homosexuality is defined as one of only a very few sins that ‘cry out for vengeance.’ It is singled out as ‘an abomination.’ To say so is not to hate or loathe anyone, but to state a fact, as to what the Bible says about it. To say so is no more ‘hateful’ or ‘loathing’ than to state the fact, to someone sitting on a railroad track with a train due, that they are endangering themselves.

 

[johnnycatholic]

If masturbators were lobbying in Washington for the same rights as married couples, you’d probably hear more about them on this site, too. Same with fornicators.
Homosexuality is a disorder and one of the ways that is manifested in society is a need to have everyone accept this disorder as “normal”. This is the inherent difference between a sin motivated by lust and sin motivated by a disorder; fornicators just say it’s no big deal. People living the homosexual lifestyle are trying to get you to believe it’s normal.

 

[ricko]

Most everyone now days tend to accept homosexuals. It’s the politically correct thing to do. They crave attention, in fact demand it. They want to show the world that they are gay and proud of it. So we have gay parades, gay day at Disney World and so on. They protested for more money for research for Aids and got it. More money is spent on finding a cure for AIDS/HIV than cancer or heart disease. HIV is not even in the top ten for deaths of all diseases.

What makes this sin even more deadly is the fact that they flaunt it in our faces and worse in the face of God. Many do not even accept that it is a sin and call themselves “children of God”

Forgive a sinner who repents. Forgive him seven times seventy but a sinner who does not repent and even denies the sin is an abomination.

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

Forgive a sinner who repents. Forgive him seven times seventy but a sinner who does not repent and even denies the sin is an abomination.

Just as a side note, I do believe that we are required by Christian charity to forgive even those who have not repented.

I agree that homosexual behavior is wrong, but we need to be careful to follow Christ’s example and not harden our hearts toward sinners.

 

[ricko]

Just as a side note, I do believe that we are required by Christian charity to forgive even those who have not repented.

I agree that homosexual behavior is wrong, but we need to be careful to follow Christ’s example and not harden our hearts toward sinners.

I disagree and stand by my post. Forgiveness without repenting is condoning evil. The sin continues.

We aren’t obligated to forgive people who do not want us to. This is one of the biggest stumbling blocks that people have regarding the topic. People have seen “unconditional” forgiveness and love hammered so often that they feel obligated to forgive someone even before that person has repented. Sometimes they even tell the unrepentant that they have preemptively forgiven him (much to the impenitent’s annoyance).

This is not what is required of us.

Consider Luke 17:3–4, where Jesus tells us, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

Notice that Jesus says to forgive him if he repents, not regardless of whether he does so. Jesus also envisions the person coming back to you and admitting his wrong.

The upshot? If someone isn’t repentant, you don’t have to forgive him.
Catholic Answers

requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. . . . In no passage of the gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence toward evil, toward scandals, toward injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness" (DM 14).
John Paul II

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Just as a side note, I do believe that we are required by Christian charity to forgive even those who have not repented.

I agree that homosexual behavior is wrong, but we need to be careful to follow Christ’s example and not harden our hearts toward sinners.

JUTobie:

We can’t forgive Homosexual Conduct, but then we’re not allowed to count the sin and hold it against Homosexuals when they sin, because their sins aren’t against US - They’re against GOD!

Because the sins are Against God (and their partners), the One who needs to forgive them primarily is God. And, That would happen through His chosen representatives in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

As Christ has already paid the price for them with His Body broken on the Cross and His Blood outpoured, all homosexuals who have sinned, like all of us who sin, really need to do is to accept and acknowladge that they are sinners, realize that Christ died for them and paid the terrible price of their sin in order that they might have new life and have it more abundantly, and ask for God’s forgiveness with a sincere purpose of ammendment. If they do that, they will repent because of Gratitutde.

Anyone who understans that he is dead in his sins without the Sacrrifice of Christ, and that he absolutely doesn’t deserve that sacrifice, will repent.

Our job is to show them this sacrifice and what it can mean for them so they can take hold of the forgivenes and grace that is waiting for them - Not to give them some “Cheap Forgivenes” that we are empowered to give, as if we were the wronged party.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[JezuUfamTobie]

JUTobie:

We can’t forgive Homosexual Conduct, but then we’re not allowed to count the sin and hold it against Homosexuals when they sin, because their sins aren’t against US - They’re against GOD!

Because the sins are Against God (and their partners), the One who needs to forgive them primarily is God. And, That would happen through His chosen representatives in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

As Christ has already paid the price for them with His Body broken on the Cross and His Blood outpoured, all homosexuals who have sinned, like all of us who sin, really need to do is to accept and acknowladge that they are sinners, realize that Christ died for them and paid the terrible price of their sin in order that they might have new life and have it more abundantly, and ask for God’s forgiveness with a sincere purpose of ammendment. If they do that, they will repent because of Gratitutde.

Anyone who understans that he is dead in his sins without the Sacrrifice of Christ, and that he absolutely doesn’t deserve that sacrifice, will repent.

Our job is to show them this sacrifice and what it can mean for them so they can take hold of the forgivenes and grace that is waiting for them - Not to give them some “Cheap Forgivenes” that we are empowered to give, as if we were the wronged party.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

I agree. I simply didn’t understand that we were referring to forgiveness as “absolution of sin” in this context. Since most of us aren’t empowered to absolve one of his sins anyhow, by “forgiveness” I was referring to the refusal to harbor a grudge against someone or behave uncharitably toward him because of his sins. Much as Pope John Paul II visited and publically “forgave” his would-be assassin.

I wasn’t meaning to insinuate that laymen have the authority to forgive sins. I merely wanted to stress the fact that kindness has been known to win over souls to Christ. We shouldn’t water down our Church’s teachings, but I think that calling somebody an “abomination” is far more likely to lead him astray than to shepherd him home. We as Catholics must be careful not to appear hateful in the process of asserting the truth, especially because we have been accused so often of doing so.

 

[ricko]

I agree. I simply didn’t understand that we were referring to forgiveness as “absolution of sin” in this context. Since most of us aren’t empowered to absolve one of his sins anyhow, by “forgiveness” I was referring to the refusal to harbor a grudge against someone or behave uncharitably toward him because of his sins. Much as Pope John Paul II visited and publically “forgave” his would-be assassin.

I wasn’t meaning to insinuate that laymen have the authority to forgive sins. I merely wanted to stress the fact that kindness has been known to win over souls to Christ. We shouldn’t water down our Church’s teachings, but I think that calling somebody an “abomination” is far more likely to lead him astray than to shepherd him home. We as Catholics must be careful not to appear hateful in the process of asserting the truth, especially because we have been accused so often of doing so.

It sounds nice to shower every sinner with love and kindness but that is not what scripture teaches. First we must recognize the sin, then repentence must follow. Every sin affects all of us even though the sin is not directed to us personally.

“Victimless crime” is a cruel lie of our age. Sin victimizes the sinner and so victimizes everyone with whom he has contact. John Donne (1572-1631) said it most famously:

No man is an island, entire of itself;
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; . . .
any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind;
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
it tolls for thee.

More to the point, Paul says, “If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. Now you are the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 12:26-27). The Catechism puts it this way: “In this solidarity of men, living or dead, which is founded on the communion of saints, the least of our acts done in charity redounds to the profit of all. Every sin harms this communion” (CCC 953).

Jesus, I repeat, Jesus says to rebuke the one who sins.

Consider Luke 17:3–4, where Jesus tells us, “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

The bible states that is an abomination.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Lev. 18:22) and then instituted the death penalty for disobeying this commandment: