The origin of love that homosexuals feel for one another

[LongingSoul]

…continued.

It must be acknowledged that underlying this work of rethinking there are certain positive concerns which to a great extent belong to the best tradition of Catholic thought. In response to the encouragement of the Second Vatican Council, there has been a desire to foster dialogue with modern culture, emphasizing the rational — and thus universally understandable and communicable — character of moral norms belonging to the sphere of the natural moral law. There has also been an attempt to reaffirm the interior character of the ethical requirements deriving from that law, requirements which create an obligation for the will only because such an obligation was previously acknowledged by human reason and, concretely, by personal conscience.

Some people, however, disregarding the dependence of human reason on Divine Wisdom and the need, given the present state of fallen nature, for Divine Revelation as an effective means for knowing moral truths, even those of the natural order, have actually posited a complete sovereignty of reason in the domain of moral norms regarding the right ordering of life in this world. Such norms would constitute the boundaries for a merely “human” morality; they would be the expression of a law which man in an autonomous manner lays down for himself and which has its source exclusively in human reason. In no way could God be considered the Author of this law, except in the sense that human reason exercises its autonomy in setting down laws by virtue of a primordial and total mandate given to man by God. These trends of thought have led to a denial, in opposition to Sacred Scripture (cf. Mt 15:3-6) and the Church’s constant teaching, of the fact that the natural moral law has God as its author, and that man, by the use of reason, participates in the eternal law, which it is not for him to establish.

In their desire, however, to keep the moral life in a Christian context, certain moral theologians have introduced a sharp distinction, contrary to Catholic doctrine, between an ethical order, which would be human in origin and of value for this world alone, and an order of salvation, for which only certain intentions and interior attitudes regarding God and neighbour would be significant. This has then led to an actual denial that there exists, in Divine Revelation, a specific and determined moral content, universally valid and permanent. The word of God would be limited to proposing an exhortation, a generic paraenesis, which the autonomous reason alone would then have the task of completing with normative directives which are truly “objective”, that is, adapted to the concrete historical situation. Naturally, an autonomy conceived in this way also involves the denial of a specific doctrinal competence on the part of the Church and her Magisterium with regard to particular moral norms which deal with the so-called “human good”. Such norms would not be part of the proper content of Revelation, and would not in themselves be relevant for salvation.

**No one can fail to see that such an interpretation of the autonomy of human reason involves positions incompatible with Catholic teaching.

In such a context it is absolutely necessary to clarify, in the light of the word of God and the living Tradition of the Church, the fundamental notions of human freedom and of the moral law, as well as their profound and intimate relationship. Only thus will it be possible to respond to the rightful claims of human reason in a way which accepts the valid elements present in certain currents of contemporary moral theology without compromising the Church’s heritage of moral teaching with ideas derived from an erroneous concept of autonomy**.

In other words there is no dualism of nature in human beings that would render them or their sins, beyond judgement, much less render their sins an expression of love. Even the invincibly ignorant are intrinsically accountable to natural law if not moral law. St Thomas identifies that “the reason is perverted by passion, or evil habit, or an evil disposition of nature”… so even if some incident or person should influence another away from truth… there is still within the person, the final requirement to choose between good and evil.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In other words there is no dualism of nature in human beings that would render them or their sins, beyond judgement…

I never said there was. Sinners are subject to judgment.

Even the invincibly ignorant are intrinsically accountable to natural law if not moral law. St Thomas identifies that “the reason is perverted by passion, or evil habit, or an evil disposition of nature”… so even if some incident or person should influence another away from truth… there is still within the person, the final requirement to choose between good and evil.

I agree wholeheartedly. But neither JPII nor Aquinas ever said that an inferior sort of love was impossible to unrepentant sinners.

I’m done correcting mistaken understandings here. If you think I’m out to justify the ways of sinners, you just go ahead thinking that. Apparently it makes you happy.

 

[SMGS127]

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.

But we are not discussing culpability, but rather love. The invincibly ignorant may still have some small degree of culpability, but that does not make them unable to selflessly love, even if that selfless love is directed in an ignorantly disordered fashion.

 

[LongingSoul]

I never said there was. Sinners are subject to judgment.

I agree wholeheartedly. But neither JPII nor Aquinas ever said that an inferior sort of love was impossible to unrepentant sinners.

I’m done correcting mistaken understandings here. If you think I’m out to justify the ways of sinners, you just go ahead thinking that. Apparently it makes you happy.

I do know exactly what you are arguing for. You are saying that a couple practicing an unnatural vice as lifestyle, are sinning by their sexual actions but that their mutually cooperative exchanges are love regardless of the relationship context. From this, I have to ask myself what conclusion is one looking for by separating the ‘loyalty’ and ‘honour’ that the participants in the relationship have towards each other… from the needs and dictates of the common good, the natural order and the divine order?

I think about the concept of ‘honour among theives’. Any relationship pursuing a common end, engenders loyalty among the participants. However, is that loyalty/love the band of theives feels for one another still godly when the end it is serving is crime and destruction among the community? ‘Honour among theives’ is lauded commonly in cultures who reject the concepts of a common good and natural and divine order. We see these toxic relationships sentimentalised and idealised often in popular media… Bonnie and Clyde, Ronny Biggs, Robin Hood, specifically for the purpose of giving their individual feelings of attachment for each other… a higher virtue than the love that God calls us too. Love of neighbour before all else. The sentimentalising of these sinful lifestyles is a direct insult to the common good and God.

The homosexual lifestyle has been gradually sentimentalised and even celebrated to the point of threatening the institution of marriage. If I was running the gay lobby agenda, the first thing I would do to break down the qualifiers of marriage… would be to break down the qualifiers of love. If two people love each other and love is higher than the common good and the natural order, then why should we keep marriage attached to the common good and natural order. ‘Love’ trumps the common good and natural order and therefore is the highest qualifier for marriage.

So that’s my line of reasoning. I cannot think of any reason to isolate actions and separate them from the ends they are seeking, other than to justify sin.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I do know exactly what you are arguing for. You are saying that a couple practicing an unnatural vice as lifestyle, are sinning by their sexual actions but that their mutually cooperative exchanges are love regardless of the relationship context. From this, I have to ask myself what conclusion is one looking for by separating the ‘loyalty’ and ‘honour’ that the participants in the relationship have towards each other… from the needs and dictates of the common good, the natural order and the divine order?

I think about the concept of ‘honour among theives’. Any relationship pursuing a common end, engenders loyalty among the participants. However, is that loyalty/love the band of theives feels for one another still godly when the end it is serving is crime and destruction among the community? ‘Honour among theives’ is lauded commonly in cultures who reject the concepts of a common good and natural and divine order. We see these toxic relationships sentimentalised and idealised often in popular media… Bonnie and Clyde, Ronny Biggs, Robin Hood, specifically for the purpose of giving their individual feelings of attachment for each other… a higher virtue than the love that God calls us too. Love of neighbour before all else. The sentimentalising of these sinful lifestyles is a direct insult to the common good and God.

The homosexual lifestyle has been gradually sentimentalised and even celebrated to the point of threatening the institution of marriage. If I was running the gay lobby agenda, the first thing I would do to break down the qualifiers of marriage… would be to break down the qualifiers of love. If two people love each other and love is higher than the common good and the natural order, then why should we keep marriage attached to the common good and natural order. ‘Love’ trumps the common good and natural order and therefore is the highest qualifier for marriage.

So that’s my line of reasoning. I cannot think of any reason to isolate actions and separate them from the ends they are seeking, other than to justify sin.

Excellent.

We are being persuaded or convinced to look away from the malignancy to society of the ill conceived legalization of gay “marriage,” because of some homosexual relations that are long term and faithful.

Sincerity does not make an inherent wrong correct because one can be sincerely wrong.

Catholics so persuaded or convinced need to look at the big picture to the children of the future, the family, and religious liberty.

Pope Francis, for all the left and media manipulation of his message of mercy to sinful priests in the past and to our gay brothers and sisters, has not undone the Church teaching upholding natural (not just sacramental) marriage between a man and a woman and family by virtue of children brought about by this natural union.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

So that’s my line of reasoning. I cannot think of any reason to isolate actions and separate them from the ends they are seeking, other than to justify sin.

I’m a philosopher by trade. I do not inquire into matters because I have some ulterior motive, or because I’m trying to prove something. I want to know the truth.

Your refusal to believe that this is my motive is insulting.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m a philosopher by trade. I do not inquire into matters because I have some ulterior motive, or because I’m trying to prove something. I want to know the truth.

Your refusal to believe that this is my motive is insulting.

I’m sorry you’ve taken it personally but here lies an opportunity to clarify why it is important or necessary, to isolate aspects within an inherently wrong lifestyle that is destructive to the family and the species… and stress that it is love. What will be achieved by making this stretch that not even the Church has made? Why is it necessary, when we already know that the relationship is destructive and wrong? We don’t bother trying to find merit in other things that are inherently wrong and forbidden. What possible reason could there be for that endeavour?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

We don’t bother trying to find merit in other things that are inherently wrong and forbidden.

I do. Doing so **dignifies **the wrongdoer. It does not justify their sins.

 

[SMGS127]

We don’t bother trying to find merit in other things that are inherently wrong and forbidden. What possible reason could there be for that endeavour?

It’s much easier to evangelize to a group of people when you understand their actions are formed from love and selflessness than if you cling to an idea of “well I know I’m right and they’re harming each other, so I’m going to tell them how they don’t really love each other!”

So I’d think evangelization would be a pretty decent reason.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I do. Doing so **dignifies **the wrongdoer. It does not justify their sins.

It’s much easier to evangelize to a group of people when you understand their actions are formed from love and selflessness than if you cling to an idea of “well I know I’m right and they’re harming each other, so I’m going to tell them how they don’t really love each other!”

So I’d think evangelization would be a pretty decent reason.

I haven’t chimed in for awhile so I just want to add my . This is how I think of it as well.

Off to Adoration.

 

[LongingSoul]

I do. Doing so **dignifies **the wrongdoer. It does not justify their sins.

It’s much easier to evangelize to a group of people when you understand their actions are formed from love and selflessness than if you cling to an idea of “well I know I’m right and they’re harming each other, so I’m going to tell them how they don’t really love each other!”

So I’d think evangelization would be a pretty decent reason.

Mans dignity comes from who he is, not what he does. It’s derived solely from his nature and his proper end. His works are meaningless unless they are expressions of his faith. His works don’t determine love or his dignity.

Evangelization is spreading the word of God and what God has written onto our hearts about love and human dignity.

Cardinal Basil Hume gives clear insight into the origin of human dignity as being innate to the person apart from anything he does and how that dignity is served by the truth about sin… not as you guys are positing regarding the quality of his “works”. ie. doing laundry and helping each other. “A note on the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning homosexuality” (1997) Card. Hume writes as follows:

*“The Church recognises the dignity of all people and does not define or label them in terms of their sexual orientation. The pastor and counsellor must see all people, irrespective of their sexuality, as children of God and destined for eternal life.”

“The Church has always taught that the sexual (genital) expression of love is intended by God’s plan of creation to find its place exclusively within marriage between a man and a woman; and the sexual (genital) expression of love must be open to the possible transmission of new life”.

“When the Church speaks of the inclination to homosexuality as being ‘an objective disorder’ (Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, para. 3), she does not consider, of course, the whole personality and character of the individual to be thereby disordered. Homosexual people, as well as heterosexual people, can, and often do, give a fine example of friendship and the art of chaste loving*.”

“The Catholic Church advocates and defends the fundamental human rights of every person. The Church cannot, however, acknowledge amongst fundamental human rights a proposed right to acts which she teaches are morally wrong. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental human right of every person, irrespective of sexual orientation, to be treated by individuals and by society with dignity, respect and fairness.”

Homosexual relationships no matter how intense and devoted, do not serve the dignity of the people involved or the dignity of man in general. Their love is witnessed through disinterested friendship and chastity due to their status. Not through romantic gay lifestyles in anyway.

 

[TStokes]

I’ve never had an issue with homo-sexuals having non- intement relationships together, im not sure if that view is right or wrong i’ve always been a bit more open to them because i 've been called one many times and when your cast into a group you dont belong to you gain views that favor that group

 

[LongingSoul]

Non intimate relationships are the perfect example of disinterested friendship and chastity, that the Church affirms as loving. You are correct in believing that, TStokes.

 

[One_point]

I can accept that many people may not be guilty of mortal sin with regards to their homosexual lifestyle, but I have a hard time imagining that this because of a lack of natural knowledge of homosexuality being wrong. Considering the near universal contempt for it, it seems one of those things that humans know instinctively. And why not? Everybody can see that a man is meant to be sexually involved with a woman, and not another man (or animal or other things). The invincible ignorance argument honestly seems a bit far-fetched to me. If it is true, I bet it applies to far fewer people than we imagine. However, in the present culture where children are trained to defend the goodness of homosexuality and abhor its critics as haters, it’s possible for me to imagine a generation of people who were sincerely mistaken about the moral character of a homosexual lifestyle. I doubt the same can be said about the “pioneer” generation though, those who introduced this new culture in the first place. They didn’t have the massive brainwashing to mislead them, they fought against the grain to make this the “norm”.

However, I do think that they may be less than mortally guilty based on the weakness of the flesh. Kinda like an alcoholic. I think it takes extraordinary circumstances for people to be genuinely confused about the moral nature of homosexual behavior.

 

[EIF5A]

Non intimate relationships are the perfect example of disinterested friendship and chastity, that the Church affirms as loving. You are correct in believing that, TStokes.

What’s your definition as non-intimate? Celibate?

 

[LongingSoul]

What’s your definition as non-intimate? Celibate?

Celibate, disinterested friendship. Similar to any other disinterested relationship outside of marriageable relationships. Disinterested here is used in the CCC to denote Christs disinterested love of us… that is loving for it’s own sake and not for romantic and/or sexual reciprocity that is only good and fruitful to marriage.

 

[EIF5A]

Celibate, disinterested friendship. Similar to any other disinterested relationship outside of marriageable relationships. Disinterested here is used in the CCC to denote Christs disinterested love of us… that is loving for it’s own sake and not for romantic and/or sexual reciprocity that is only good and fruitful to marriage.

What about a particular friendship/relationship that is exclusive but celibate?

 

[LongingSoul]

What about a particular friendship/relationship that is exclusive but celibate?

That would be an ‘interested’ relationship if it were bound by some commitment to forsake all other love and that is only right to the relationship of marriage. Any expectation of exclusiveness within friendships is misdirected.

 

[EIF5A]

That would be an ‘interested’ relationship if it were bound by some commitment to forsake all other love and that is only right to the relationship of marriage. Any expectation of exclusiveness within friendships is misdirected.

So a “best friend” is wrong because that’s exclusive.

 

[LongingSoul]

So a “best friend” is wrong because that’s exclusive.

Best friends aren’t exclusive. There is no commitment or promise there that obliges the friendship. The friendship exists in the unbound freedom ie ‘disinterested’ friendship that enjoys the other for it’s own sake. Exclusive implies that all other friendships are forsaken in principle.