The origin of love that homosexuals feel for one another

[mgoforth]

Even if they serve together at a soup kitchen?

If they serve at the soup kitchen “as a couple”…then YES. They would be advertising themselves as homosexual and by their example telling others that it’s ok to be in a homosexual relationship.

So yes, anything they do as a couple is based in sin. Sorry that’s not very politically correct.

 

[mgoforth]

Goodness me I cannot comprehend how you arrive at such a misreading of what I’ve said. I believe and have said numerous times, homosexual acts are sinful, and I mean that as no insult to anyone. Your view is that there can be no love between such persons - not that the love is flawed or imperfect, but none at all!

There can be love between those persons. The love of friendship. Friends who live apart from each other so they aren’t tempted to take things any further. Really, what’s so hard to understand about that?

 

[mgoforth]

WHAT? You are completely misinterpreting me.

I call things sin all the time, to people’s faces if I have a real relationship with them. Saying that sins are sins does not insult a person. But I do not call things that are not sins sins. Homosexual sex is a sin. Two people of the same sex helping each other with the laundry is not sin. I refuse to say that helping with the laundry is not (at least sometimes) loving.

You’re tilting at windmills, if you think Rau and I are moral relativists.

Two people of the same sex, who are attracted to others of the same sex, helping each other with the laundry because they live together and consider themselves a celibate “couple” is still sinful. Why? The same reasons it would be sinful for a heterosexual man and woman to cohabitate before marriage.

1. 
   *]Scandal
   *]Occasion of sin
   
   The difference is that a man and woman can be married before God and remove both of those sins. A homosexual couple can’t be married before God, no matter what state they live in.

 

[SMGS127]

Two people of the same sex, who are attracted to others of the same sex, helping each other with the laundry because they live together and consider themselves a celibate “couple” is still sinful. Why? The same reasons it would be sinful for a heterosexual man and woman to cohabitate before marriage.

1. 
   *]Scandal
   *]Occasion of sin
   
   The difference is that a man and woman can be married before God and remove both of those sins. A homosexual couple can’t be married before God, no matter what state they live in.

1. 
   I…mostly agree with this post, but let me add 2 points:
   
   A) It is licit for 2 people to cohabitate if it is required for them to financially survive, but they must be EXTREMELY careful about who knows and that the ones who do know also know WHY they are cohabitating.
   
   B) Moral theologians disagree whether near occasions of sin are, in and of themselves, sin. But the sin of scandal is very real, which is part of the reason that, even in licit situations, the knowledge of the situation must be kept as limited (and as full to those who do know) as possible.

 

[Rau]

Two people of the same sex, who are attracted to others of the same sex, helping each other with the laundry because they live together and consider themselves a celibate “couple” is still sinful. Why? The same reasons it would be sinful for a heterosexual man and woman to cohabitate before marriage.

1. 
   *]Scandal
   *]Occasion of sin
   
   The difference is that a man and woman can be married before God and remove both of those sins. A homosexual couple can’t be married before God, no matter what state they live in.

1. 
   And yet gain, the discussion returns to the (not in dispute) sinfulness…

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Two people of the same sex, who are attracted to others of the same sex, helping each other with the laundry because they live together and consider themselves a celibate “couple” is still sinful. Why? The same reasons it would be sinful for a heterosexual man and woman to cohabitate before marriage.

1. 
   *]Scandal
   *]Occasion of sin
   
   The difference is that a man and woman can be married before God and remove both of those sins. A homosexual couple can’t be married before God, no matter what state they live in.

1. 
   How do you know they are committing scandal? If they are discrete? It should be easier for two men or two wmen to live together and not give scandal. A coworker referred to her sister’s partner as her roommate. I was innocent enough to go with that but did figure it out. Is there always something scandalous abiut two people of the same sex living together?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

How do you know they are committing scandal? If they are discrete? It should be easier for two men or two wmen to live together and not give scandal. A coworker referred to her sister’s partner as her roommate. I was innocent enough to go with that but did figure it out. Is there always something scandalous abiut two people of the same sex living together?

Suppose you are, like me, attracted to both men and women. And suppose you’re single. Guess you either have to live alone, or live with family members.

Until incest becomes acceptable too, and then we’ll all be guilty of scandal from the get-go!

 

[mgoforth]

How do you know they are committing scandal? If they are discrete? It should be easier for two men or two wmen to live together and not give scandal. A coworker referred to her sister’s partner as her roommate. I was innocent enough to go with that but did figure it out. Is there always something scandalous abiut two people of the same sex living together?

So lying about it is better?

 

[mgoforth]

Suppose you are, like me, attracted to both men and women. And suppose you’re single. Guess you either have to live alone, or live with family members.

Until incest becomes acceptable too, and then we’ll all be guilty of scandal from the get-go!

You could live with someone you’re not attracted to right? Are you attracted to every man or woman you meet? Probably not. But I think this is just a deflection…what you’re describing is completely different than living with someone because you’re attracted to that person and being a “couple”. If you moved in with a roommate and then became attracted to them, you should probably move out or get married.

 

[mgoforth]

And yet gain, the discussion returns to the (not in dispute) sinfulness…

Perhaps it keeps returning to sinfulness because sinfulness is inherent to the topic?

Edit: I’m confused…if you’re not disputing the sinfulness of homosexual relationships, then doesn’t that answer the question of whether the “love” in question is real? How can love be real when it harms the person you supposedly love? It makes much more sense logically to call such a relationship the product of Eros (romantic “love”) which is a feeling. So homosexual relationships are based on feelings, just as pre-marital heterosexual relationships are based on feelings. Heterosexual marriage should be based on agape, or charity as it’s frequently called in Christianity. I realize it’s often not, but at least that possibility is open. But how can homosexual relationships have charity when they endanger the souls of both partners? Is the eternal destiny of the soul somehow less important than earthly happiness?

 

[SMGS127]

Perhaps it keeps returning to sinfulness because sinfulness is inherent to the topic?

Edit: I’m confused…if you’re not disputing the sinfulness of homosexual relationships, then doesn’t that answer the question of whether the “love” in question is real? How can love be real when it harms the person you supposedly love? It makes much more sense logically to call such a relationship the product of Eros (romantic “love”) which is a feeling. So homosexual relationships are based on feelings, just as pre-marital heterosexual relationships are based on feelings. Heterosexual marriage should be based on agape, or charity as it’s frequently called in Christianity. I realize it’s often not, but at least that possibility is open. But how can homosexual relationships have charity when they endanger the souls of both partners? Is the eternal destiny of the soul somehow less important than earthly happiness?

Let me put it this way. Let me say that you had a deadly lead leakage in your water pipes you were completely ignorant about. Your eight year-old becomes sick, and, out of love, you bring her water constantly to keep her hydrated. She dies as a result. Was your constant attention and bringing her water not full of charity just because the water ended up killing her without you knowing there was anything dangerous about what you did? So too is the charity gays show each other. They are ignorant of the spiritual harm they cause, and as such, they think they are doing what’s best for each other and want what’s best for each other. They still have charity, but it is directed in an ignorant fashion. No doubt many gay couples would immediately cease their relationships out of love for their partner were they to see firsthand the damage they were doing to their partner’s soul.

 

[Rau]

Perhaps it keeps returning to sinfulness because sinfulness is inherent to the topic?

Edit: I’m confused…if you’re not disputing the sinfulness of homosexual relationships, then doesn’t that answer the question of whether the “love” in question is real? How can love be real when it harms the person you supposedly love? It makes much more sense logically to call such a relationship the product of Eros (romantic “love”) which is a feeling. So homosexual relationships are based on feelings, just as pre-marital heterosexual relationships are based on feelings. Heterosexual marriage should be based on agape, or charity as it’s frequently called in Christianity. I realize it’s often not, but at least that possibility is open. But how can homosexual relationships have charity when they endanger the souls of both partners? Is the eternal destiny of the soul somehow less important than earthly happiness?

Sinfulness is present, which is why we have the original topic at all! Could love exist in the midst of sin? Or does that sinfulness detract from the love (assuming it exists, that being the question), & make it imperfect? Must all acts of kindness, selflessness, compassion, sacrifice and so forth in such a relationship be born of something evil, or of love?

I understand your perspective that says love is not the right word to use, which relies on a kind of all or nothing, black or white reasoning. But I can’t reduce relationships between persons to that degree.

The OP departed the scene long ago - perhaps we should do the same, and “call it a thread”…

cheers

 

[LongingSoul]

Let me put it this way. Let me say that you had a deadly lead leakage in your water pipes you were completely ignorant about. Your eight year-old becomes sick, and, out of love, you bring her water constantly to keep her hydrated. She dies as a result. Was your constant attention and bringing her water not full of charity just because the water ended up killing her without you knowing there was anything dangerous about what you did? So too is the charity gays show each other. They are ignorant of the spiritual harm they cause, and as such, they think they are doing what’s best for each other and want what’s best for each other. They still have charity, but it is directed in an ignorant fashion. No doubt many gay couples would immediately cease their relationships out of love for their partner were they to see firsthand the damage they were doing to their partner’s soul.

But what if say the experts in water integrity were saying don’t drink the water because even though you can’t see anything wrong with it… it is toxic and will kill you… would it then be love if you were to say, I don’t believe you. I feel it’s the right thing to do to give it to my daughter regardless of expert advice. Is that still an act of love? Or is that the god of self interest masquerading as love?

 

[Gloria_de_G]

But what if say the experts in water integrity were saying don’t drink the water because even though you can’t see anything wrong with it… it is toxic and will kill you… would it then be love if you were to say, I don’t believe you. I feel it’s the right thing to do to give it to my daughter regardless of expert advice. Is that still an act of love? Or is that the god of self interest masquerading as love?

Sorry but I think it will help something that I wrote about Scripture in the forum.

Should we hate our father, and our mother, our daughter, etc. It is about what we should do if our relatives commit evil deeds.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=843007

If it is of no help, do not read it…

In the love of the truth,
Gloria

.

 

[mgoforth]

Let me put it this way. Let me say that you had a deadly lead leakage in your water pipes you were completely ignorant about. Your eight year-old becomes sick, and, out of love, you bring her water constantly to keep her hydrated. She dies as a result. Was your constant attention and bringing her water not full of charity just because the water ended up killing her without you knowing there was anything dangerous about what you did? So too is the charity gays show each other. They are ignorant of the spiritual harm they cause, and as such, they think they are doing what’s best for each other and want what’s best for each other. They still have charity, but it is directed in an ignorant fashion. No doubt many gay couples would immediately cease their relationships out of love for their partner were they to see firsthand the damage they were doing to their partner’s soul.

Correct me if I’m wrong (with sources if possible for my benefit), but isn’t homosexuality a violation of natural law. Meaning that every human being intrinsically knows that it’s disordered? In the same way that we can’t claim ignorance that murder is wrong, I don’t think someone can claim complete ignorance that homosexuality is unnatural.

 

[mgoforth]

Sinfulness is present, which is why we have the original topic at all! Could love exist in the midst of sin? Or does that sinfulness detract from the love (assuming it exists, that being the question), & make it imperfect? Must all acts of kindness, selflessness, compassion, sacrifice and so forth in such a relationship be born of something evil, or of love?

I understand your perspective that says love is not the right word to use, which relies on a kind of all or nothing, black or white reasoning. But I can’t reduce relationships between persons to that degree.

The OP departed the scene long ago - perhaps we should do the same, and “call it a thread”…

cheers

Yes, I think love can exist in the midst of sin. It’s disordered, and will taint the kindness, selflessness, etc. Very hard to have selflessness and selfishness co-existing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Correct me if I’m wrong (with sources if possible for my benefit), but isn’t homosexuality a violation of natural law. Meaning that every human being intrinsically knows that it’s disordered? In the same way that we can’t claim ignorance that murder is wrong, I don’t think someone can claim complete ignorance that homosexuality is unnatural.

That’s not what Catholic theologians generally mean by “natural law”. According to Aquinas, natural law is **able **to be discovered by reason, but that does not mean that all people know it without any investigation.

Now, perhaps we might say that the conscience, in its natural state, knows that homosexual actions are wrong. But consciences can be badly educated or distorted by sin. People who claim that they don’t think homosexual acts are sinful very often aren’t lying. They’re quite sincere. Their consciences are just in error.

 

[SMGS127]

That’s not what Catholic theologians generally mean by “natural law”. According to Aquinas, natural law is **able **to be discovered by reason, but that does not mean that all people know it without any investigation.

Now, perhaps we might say that the conscience, in its natural state, knows that homosexual actions are wrong. But consciences can be badly educated or distorted by sin. People who claim that they don’t think homosexual acts are sinful very often aren’t lying. They’re quite sincere. Their consciences are just in error.

In addition, one can, by reason of their upbringing, have their conscience calloused to some aspects of natural law before they are even to the age of reason and especially before they are to the age where their physical attractions begin to matter. These people would be a good case study on how one could potentially be ignorant to moral law. The Church does not teach that one cannot, under any circumstances whatsoever, be ignorant of moral law; it is just significantly more difficult a case to make.

But what if say the experts in water integrity were saying don’t drink the water because even though you can’t see anything wrong with it… it is toxic and will kill you… would it then be love if you were to say, I don’t believe you. I feel it’s the right thing to do to give it to my daughter regardless of expert advice. Is that still an act of love? Or is that the god of self interest masquerading as love?

And if the person long ago stopped trusting that water department because there were 10,000 different water departments, all issuing slightly different reports on the water quality ranging from completely pure to “you’ll die the second it hits your skin?” Protestantism has done more damage to our cause than almost any other movement in history.

Why follow a cautious path of denying yourself something that feels to you like the correct path when you associate the cautious option with the people screaming that your water will kill you the second you touch it, and you know that to be false from experience (e.g. extremely right-wing Protestants and their insistence that if you only try hard enough, you can stop being attracted to members of the same sex)?

Why follow a cautious path when there’s (to you) a perfectly legitimate water department telling you your water is safe (e.g. liberal Protestants and their insistence that there’s really, truly nothing wrong with you committing this mortal sin)?

The middle option of “that water is extremely dangerous; let us provide you with safe water” gets lost in the mix.

 

[LongingSoul]

:
And if the person long ago stopped trusting that water department because there were 10,000 different water departments, all issuing slightly different reports on the water quality ranging from completely pure to “you’ll die the second it hits your skin?” Protestantism has done more damage to our cause than almost any other movement in history.

Why follow a cautious path of denying yourself something that feels to you like the correct path when you associate the cautious option with the people screaming that your water will kill you the second you touch it, and you know that to be false from experience (e.g. extremely right-wing Protestants and their insistence that if you only try hard enough, you can stop being attracted to members of the same sex)?

Why follow a cautious path when there’s (to you) a perfectly legitimate water department telling you your water is safe (e.g. liberal Protestants and their insistence that there’s really, truly nothing wrong with you committing this mortal sin)?

The middle option of “that water is extremely dangerous; let us provide you with safe water” gets lost in the mix.

Except God didn’t except that reasoning from Adam and Eve from the very start. That is the origin of all sin. The original sin. We are unequivocally told that the commandments are written on the heart of every man and that culpability is not extinguished by extenuating circumstances like individual perceptions of love.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s not what Catholic theologians generally mean by “natural law”. According to Aquinas, natural law is **able **to be discovered by reason, but that does not mean that all people know it without any investigation.

Now, perhaps we might say that the conscience, in its natural state, knows that homosexual actions are wrong. But consciences can be badly educated or distorted by sin. People who claim that they don’t think homosexual acts are sinful very often aren’t lying. They’re quite sincere. Their consciences are just in error.

Pope John Paul II gave us the encyclical Veritatis Splendor in response to this very dualism of thought. This is quite a long extract from the document, but it addresses this exact error.

In the Book of Genesis we read: "The Lord God commanded the man, saying, ‘You may eat freely of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die’ " (Gen 2:16-17).

With this imagery, Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. The man is certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God’s commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat “of every tree of the garden”. But his freedom is not unlimited: it must halt before the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”, for it is called to accept the moral law given by God. In fact, human freedom finds its authentic and complete fulfilment precisely in the acceptance of that law. God, who alone is good, knows perfectly what is good for man, and by virtue of his very love proposes this good to man in the commandments.

God’s law does not reduce, much less do away with human freedom; rather, it protects and promotes that freedom. In contrast, however, some present-day cultural tendencies have given rise to several currents of thought in ethics which centre upon an alleged conflict between freedom and law. These doctrines would grant to individuals or social groups the right to determine what is good or evil. Human freedom would thus be able to “create values” and would enjoy a primacy over truth, to the point that truth itself would be considered a creation of freedom. Freedom would thus lay claim to a moral autonomy which would actually amount to an absolute sovereignty.

The modern concern for the claims of autonomy has not failed to exercise an influence also in the sphere of Catholic moral theology. While the latter has certainly never attempted to set human freedom against the divine law or to question the existence of an ultimate religious foundation for moral norms,** it has, nonetheless, been led to undertake a profound rethinking about the role of reason and of faith in identifying moral norms with reference to specific “innerworldly” kinds of behaviour involving oneself, others and the material world. **