SPLIT: Homosexuality immoral rather than evil?

[Dakota_Roberts]

I do not see anyone here that has claimed original sin did *not *taint our nature. No pelagianist here. I think you are misunderstanding what is said and are thus a little free with the use of the word “heresy”.

Ah, but you see the claim that it is absolutely impossible for people to be born with a disordered sensuous appetite towards the same sex denies original sin and concupiscence

 

[pnewton]

Ah, but you see the claim that it is absolutely impossible for people to be born with a disordered sensuous appetite towards the same sex denies original sin and concupiscence

Saying that it is unproven is not the same thing as saying it is absolutely impossible. Furthermore, even if one believed that this human being is born without a physical predispostition to this particular sin, in no way denies that we are not born with the stain on the soul that disposes us to Sin. No where does the Catholic Church elevate the sin of homosexuality to such a state that denial of predisposition to this one sin (which I did not do, btw) means that humans have no predisposition to sin at all. To do so would make homosexuality the ultimate cardinal sin, which it is not.

 

[timwatt]

Being heterosexual is inherent in our nature, you do not need to act on it to be one. Homosexuality is not inherent in our nature, therefore you are not one unless you act like one.

I’m attracted to the same sex. I have absolutely no attraction to the opposite sex. I’m also a virgin. Following your reasoning, I’m considered a heterosexual because I haven’t acted on it?

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m attracted to the same sex. I have absolutely no attraction to the opposite sex. I’m also a virgin. Following your reasoning, I’m considered a heterosexual because I haven’t acted on it?

Tim,

You are to be praised for confirming Church teaching. You are heterosexual by birth and homosexual in thought. You do not act and for that it is certainly praise worthy. You prove that sex is not love. You prove that God loves you and so do I…and the notion of sex is not even part of that love…praise your efforts…life is long…things change…with the grace of God…

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?

Technically speaking something is said to be “bad” when it fails to achieve its purpose. A pencil that fails to write is a bad pencil, simply because it does not achieve the purpose for which it was made.

Man is made in the Image and Likeness of God. This simply means that we have an intellect for truth, and a will for goodness and love. Since God is Truth, Goodness and Love itself, the purpose of our life itself is to seek, to know, to love, and to serve God with all our mind, all our heart, all our strength, and all our soul. Thus when we misuse our intellect and will, it is a great offense against God.

The sacred gift of sexuality is intimately linked with the creation of a new, unique human being made in the image and likeness of God. Homosexual acts are not only a misuse of this sacred gift, but it is an offense against the First Commandment, making an idol out of a disordered use of sex, and desecrating the body, which is the Temple of the Holy Spirit.

Immoral acts are evil, because they are a willful misuse of both the intellect and will. But SEX has a specific purpose. To misuse it in any way is a great sin.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body,”–1 Corinthians 6:19-20

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Saying that it is unproven is not the same thing as saying it is absolutely impossible. Furthermore, even if one believed that this human being is born without a physical predispostition to this particular sin, in no way denies that we are not born with the stain on the soul that disposes us to Sin. No where does the Catholic Church elevate the sin of homosexuality to such a state that denial of predisposition to this one sin (which I did not do, btw) means that humans have no predisposition to sin at all. To do so would make homosexuality the ultimate cardinal sin, which it is not.

I had actually meant to direct it at Constantine.

Homosexuality, id est attraction to the same sex, is not actually a sin. It is an objective disorder insofar as it desires something intrinsically disordered id est sex with someone of the same sex because it is a sin against chastity in that is closed to sexual complementarity.

Tim,

You are to be praised for confirming Church teaching. You are heterosexual by birth and homosexual in thought. You do not act and for that it is certainly praise worthy. You prove that sex is not love. You prove that God loves you and so do I…and the notion of sex is not even part of that love…praise your efforts…life is long…things change…with the grace of God…

As I recall from other posts you claim concupiscence is choice which direct contradicts Canon 418.

 

[CopticChristian]

I had actually meant to direct it at Constantine.

Homosexuality, id est attraction to the same sex, is not actually a sin. It is an objective disorder insofar as it desires something intrinsically disordered id est sex with someone of the same sex because it is a sin against chastity in that is closed to sexual complementarity.

As I recall from other posts you claim concupiscence is choice which direct contradicts Canon 418.

Dakota,

cite, quote where I said that…what I pointed to for concupiscence is here…I am amused at those that pull out canon law…read what Paul says…

14For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

  21I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23but** I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.**

Faced with choice to do my will or do the will of God…I can choose to align my will, with the will of God and serve the law of God and that is Veritatis Splendor…I choose, with grace, through Christ to serve God…My choice is not done alone, for on my own I can do nothing…yet there is choice.

Where did you get the idea that I said anything other than that?

I may have errored…however it is possible you read into what I did not say.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota,

cite, quote where I said that…what I pointed to for concupiscence is here…I am amused at those that pull out canon law…read what Paul says…

Faced with choice to do my will or do the will of God…I can choose to align my will, with the will of God and serve the law of God and that is Veritatis Splendor…I choose, with grace, through Christ to serve God…My choice is not done alone, for on my own I can do nothing…yet there is choice.

Where did you get the idea that I said anything other than that?

I may have errored…however it is possible you read into what I did not say.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9510830&postcount=187
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9512286&postcount=189
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9513700&postcount=192

Choice theory only works if there is no concupiscence.

 

[CopticChristian]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9510830&postcount=187
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9512286&postcount=189
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9513700&postcount=192

Choice theory only works if there is no concupiscence.

Dakota,

It appears that you believe that I posted contrary to Catholic Teaching. OK…none of the posts are directed towards Concupiscence and if you believe that then reread them…there are parallels in the secular world, for instance…

The secular world speaks of Ethics…not Morality…

If there is information in the world that coincides with Catholic Teaching then understand that we are all looking for the same thing…

Choice Theory is a theory…it contradicts nothing…there is nothing at odds with controlling our behavior in the secular world…as not all in the secular world accept concupiscence for don’t you know that God is impartial and the Jew is circumcised and does the law…but the Gentile that is not circumcised without the law does what the law proscribes…for they are circumcised of the heart…as God looks down from heaven and sees his people being eaten up like bread as there are those that are unrighteous…and yet there are God’s people, Jew, Greek, Barbarian…God of all…

For don’t you know that God is impartial and those in the Covenant do as the Covenant proscribes and those outside the Covenant are a Covenant unto themselves so that the pagan without the Covenant does what is expected of the Covenant because the Covenant is written on their hearts…

The cause of what people do outside the Covenant and write outside the Covenant does not contradict the Covenant…OK

They just don’t know why Choice theory is applicable, yet they are doing what the Law and the Covenant proscribe…

God, 6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7to those who by perseverance in **doing good ****seek **for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11For there is no partiality with God.

Your proposition denies that those that are circumcised of the heart, without the law, that do good, seek glory…

13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the** doers **of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

The only reason Choice Theory works is because of Concupiscence and the doing of what instinctively the things of the law and the Covenant…expect them to do.

I suggest you rethink this…

 

[mangy_dog]

I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?

Honosexual activity is immoral; unnatural and yes evil.

Evil enough that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of it and other vile perversions.

 

[pnewton]

As I recall from other posts you claim concupiscence is choice which direct contradicts Canon 418.

Once again, you are severly mistaken. I never claimed this, nor do I believe it. I have never said anything remotely like that, nor have I ever commented on the subject.

 

[Rob_has_lapsed]

That’s a bit silly. How can one be heterosexual if one is not having sex with one of the other gender?

lol :d

 

[Monster_Simpson]

Honosexual activity is immoral; unnatural and yes evil.

Evil enough that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of it and other vile perversions.

Just to let you know, I’m gay and am thoroughly impressed at how tactful you are(!)

 

[CopticChristian]

Just to let you know, I’m gay and am thoroughly impressed at how tactful you are(!)

Monster,

This is the CAF, not the OHCAC, however the teachings of the OHCAC are expressed here.

You posted on this forum the following…

I thought that Roman Catholics thought homosexuality was immoral rather than evil?

I define evil as am atrocious act against humanity and immorality as something frowned upon.

Yep, bad

Just to let you know, I’m gay and am thoroughly impressed at how tactful you are(!)

Catholics as individuals do not define evil. In consideration that you identify yourself as gay, the OHCAC accepts a heterosexual that struggles with homosexual attraction. To identify as “gay” suggests that you have accepted the identity and agenda. This for me is sad.

Your concern for tact is understood. It might have aided in the discussion had you early on said that you accepted the notion of “gay”…tact can be expressed in both ways…ommission and commission.

 

[Monster_Simpson]

Monster,

This is the CAF, not the OHCAC, however the teachings of the OHCAC are expressed here.

You posted on this forum the following…

Catholics as individuals do not define evil. In consideration that you identify yourself as gay, the OHCAC accepts a heterosexual that struggles with homosexual attraction. To identify as “gay” suggests that you have accepted the identity and agenda. This for me is sad.

Your concern for tact is understood. It might have aided in the discussion had you early on said that you accepted the notion of “gay”…tact can be expressed in both ways…ommission and commission.

If you looked up the word patronizing in the dictionary it would come up with a picture of you. Have you looked through your past posts? Every single time you quote someone you try and trip them up on something or argue with them somehow, and also you always start a quote with someone’s name, that’s really annoying, stop it and stop being so picky at what people post.

 

[CopticChristian]

If you looked up the word patronizing in the dictionary it would come up with a picture of you. Have you looked through your past posts? Every single time you quote someone you try and trip them up on something or argue with them somehow, and also you always start a quote with someone’s name, that’s really annoying, stop it and stop being so picky at what people post.

Monster,

You don’t like me. I understand. I don’t like your admission of your behavior. You understand. Trip? Argue? Always? I appreciate your following my posts. Realize that you want me to accept that I don’t control your behavior…accept that you do not control mine. Ok:thumbsup:

 

[Monster_Simpson]

Monster,

You don’t like me. I understand. I don’t like your admission of your behavior. You understand. Trip? Argue? Always? I appreciate your following my posts. Realize that you want me to accept that I don’t control your behavior…accept that you do not control mine. Ok:thumbsup:

You did it again! Anyway, I’m not bothered by catholic views on my sexuality as my church is fine with it so I’m not worried about a thing.I only did those posts because I was hoping to find some Catholics who were ok with gay people.

 

[CopticChristian]

You did it again! Anyway, I’m not bothered by catholic views on my sexuality as my church is fine with it so I’m not worried about a thing.I only did those posts because I was hoping to find some Catholics who were ok with gay people.

Monster,

You may find people that accept “gay”…recognize this…Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, you probably don’t like him much either, says homosexuals can change…and to identify as “gay” is to define yourself by other than attraction, rather as a socio-political entity…

Much has been written in recent years about embracing the gay lifestyle and “coming out of the closet.” “Coming out” is said to mean throwing off the burdens of fearfulness and self-deception to embark on the road to freedom and personal integrity.

Yet there is a certain group of homosexual men who will never seek fulfillment through coming out into a gay identity. These men have chosen to grow in another direction.

The word “homosexual” names an aspect of such a man’s psychological condition. But he is not gay. “Gay” describes a contemporary socio-political identity and lifestyle which such a man will never claim. Therefore, I call him a “non-gay homosexual.”

The non-gay homosexual is a man who experiences a split between his value system and his sexual orientation. He is fundamentally identified with the heterosexual pattern of life. The non-gay homosexual feels his personal progress to be deeply encumbered and by his same-sex attractions. He usually holds conservative values, is identified with a religious tradition, and holds no deep resentments toward Judeo-Christian teachings on homosexuality. In fact he most likely finds them reinforcing and supportive of his struggle.

So, I am a one man band eager to cause those that accept the notion of “gay” to reject it in favor of heterosexual struggling with homosexual attraction.

You may or may not know about Alfred Korzybski…you may like him…he wrote a book called “Science and Sanity”…the basic tenet of the book summarized in “Manhood of Humanity” and the basis of NLP and Neurosemantics is this…

The map is not the territory

What you choose to call something is not what it is…words define what you believe it is and the map in your head is the total of your experience…

I believe that it is crucial for the public and those reading these posts, other than you to take up the charge and reject anyone wanting me or anyone to accept someone as “gay”…

I am not at all OK with “gay” people…I am on a journey to educate others including you that no one should be alright with “gay” people because this is a construct that exists only in your head…

We have men…we have women…

Some men and some women have same sex attraction…that is about the only definition I am going to accept…

Call yourself “gay” and then we have a problem…because I do not have to accept that term…in my head, in my map…and since my map is not the territory and neither is yours…I have the right to define my map…

The map is made up of Man/XY…Woman/XX…that are attracted to their own sex…beyond that calling it something else exists only in the map in your head…it is your map and not mine and I can reject this definition…

With that in mind, No…I am not OK with “gay” people…I am OK with people that tell me that they struggle with same sex attraction…that I am OK with and it fits my map and the territory…OK…:bounce:

 

[Monster_Simpson]

Monster,

You may find people that accept “gay”…recognize this…Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, you probably don’t like him much either, says homosexuals can change…and to identify as “gay” is to define yourself by other than attraction, rather as a socio-political entity…

So, I am a one man band eager to cause those that accept the notion of “gay” to reject it in favor of heterosexual struggling with homosexual attraction.

You may or may not know about Alfred Korzybski…you may like him…he wrote a book called “Science and Sanity”…the basic tenet of the book summarized in “Manhood of Humanity” and the basis of NLP and Neurosemantics is this…

The map is not the territory

What you choose to call something is not what it is…words define what you believe it is and the map in your head is the total of your experience…

I believe that it is crucial for the public and those reading these posts, other than you to take up the charge and reject anyone wanting me or anyone to accept someone as “gay”…

I am not at all OK with “gay” people…I am on a journey to educate others including you that no one should be alright with “gay” people because this is a construct that exists only in your head…

We have men…we have women…

Some men and some women have same sex attraction…that is about the only definition I am going to accept…

Call yourself “gay” and then we have a problem…because I do not have to accept that term…in my head, in my map…and since my map is not the territory and neither is yours…I have the right to define my map…

The map is made up of Man/XY…Woman/XX…that are attracted to their own sex…beyond that calling it something else exists only in the map in your head…it is your map and not mine and I can reject this definition…

With that in mind, No…I am not OK with “gay” people…I am OK with people that tell me that they struggle with same sex attraction…that I am OK with and it fits my map and the territory…OK…:bounce:

There, there. The doctors coming to give you some more of those “special” sweets in a minute, you like that?

 

[CopticChristian]

There, there. The doctors coming to give you some more of those “special” sweets in a minute, you like that?

Monster,

I don’t eat sweets. My daughter is always bugging me to get her some soda and I always buy diet. I do eat sugar free chocolate and sugar free candy. I have a real problem with chocolate…so I don’t buy it…does not last long…for the past several days I have been eating Kentucky fried chicken…I discovered that the original is much more moist than the Crispy…so don’t get the Crispy if you like moist chicken…I have been running on the treadmill every day for about 30 minutes…

Tonight, I will do a salad, some chicken and vegetables…I snuck in some Avocado…good fat you know…

I avoid sweets like the plague…no self control…but I appreciate the thought…shaw: