Trying again regarding beliefs on homosexual acts

[truetofaith]

While both sins are mortal (presuming for this scenario that the stealing is mortal), the murder of another human being objectively offends God much more so than the act of steal $100,000. We should always be foremost concerned with how greatly our actions offend Our Lord, with the fear of punishment being a secondary reason.

$100,000 is grand larceny…so must be mortal.

Rather than how offended Our Lord will be…I would think how the family of the teller would feel.

Most murderers don’t have any regard for God or Man.

 

[Parisian]

A mortal sin is a mortal sin regardless of the person committing it is homosexual or heterosexual. A mortal sin puts us outside a grace-filled connection with Christ, and only sacramental confession can repair that.

I dont try to “rank order” all the different types of mortal sins---- I just concentrate on if my sins are mortal or venial. If mortal, I get to confession asap.

Well said…

 

[on_the_hill]

It seemed that at one point, many on CAF believed this. And actually followed the Catechism regarding unjust discrimination against “gays”.

But recently, it seems there has been more polarization on the issue, and an idea that one either has to believe (1) Homosexual acts are sinful, and the vast majority of “gays” are selfish, promiscous, unrepentant sinners with no redeeming qualities or (2) There’s nothing wrong with homosexual acts, the Church is completely mistaken.

Or maybe it’s just that the “moderates” on this issue don’t feel passionately enough to argue a “middle way”?

One thing I’ve noticed is that there is an ebb and flow of opinions on CAF, so it’s difficult to characterize the opinions over time. Although I don’t recall people stating that there’s nothing wrong with homosexual acts.

 

[on_the_hill]

I can understand the importance of “ranking” sins, but I’m less agreeable to ranking the punishments associated with them, because I’m not sure we really know what happens.

It does get difficult when you think that a seemingly lesser mortal sin (broke into a car as a teenager) is punished the same as a much more severe mortal sin (murder).

I guess that’s where we get into a discussion about the rings of hell.

 

[boomerang]

Out of curiosity, does Benedict XVI specifically state the 3rd point? (That because it goes against nature, it is worse than fornication?) Do you have that reference handy?

This reasoning would also mean that masturbation is worse than physical adultery with a prostitute, as opposed to them both being sins of a grave matter.

Benedict said it was intrinsically disordered. The rest is my opinion.

 

[JimG]

. . .

As for the comparison to masturbation or promiscuity, God was more angered by Onan for spilling his seed than committing adultery. This shows that God is not pleased by sexual acts which thwart the procreative nature for which they were designed. That would include many heterosexual sins (contraception…etc) as well as homosexual. This is why Mother Theresa said that contraception is a greater evil than abortion; it denies the soul it’s creation where abortion will still allow for the soul eternal life.

An interesting observation. I do think that ultimately it is contraception that underlies and enables most sexual sin of all kinds.

 

[Rau]

Why would you say fornication is disordered? Grave sin, yes, but it is ordered in that there is male and female complimentary.

These things, like many others, eg. Calumny are all “intrinsically disordered”. It’s a theological term, not a statement about nature. It means “always wrong to choose”.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Also, what authority relationships does it strike at?

Have you been put up to it by somebody?

What are you putting others up to doing?

 

[TK421]

Sex between a man and a woman isn’t inherently an evil thing. It’s inherently a good thing by nature, and the bonding in a natural marriage predates Christianity and Judaism. It becomes a bad thing when lust manifests itself. There are many heads on the hydra (fornication, polygamy, rape, divorce, adultery, contraception, etc.) but they all come from the same source of lust & violence within the heart, which devalues the human person.

Sex (in the loose sense of the word) between two women or two men is inherently an evil thing. It doesn’t become evil only if it is misused in some way.

This is the argument used that homosexuality is inherently more offensive to God than fornication. It is not an official teaching but it does have a long history, from the High Middle Ages and I believe earlier. I’m not sure if it is a satisfactory explanation.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

And, is it being turned into a publicity stunt? By whom, and for what purpose?

Also, aren’t boundaries fundamental? What’s “contrary to nature” is against boundaries and a lot of things that colloquially aren’t “contrary to nature” are against boundaries as well.

In the answer to the OP, there’s no two ways about it.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Why would you say fornication is disordered? Grave sin, yes, but it is ordered in that there is male and female complimentary.

Because both the Catechism and Thomas Aquinas say so.

If you steal $100,000 from a bank, it’s a mortal sin & will send you to hell if you don’t repent.

If you shoot & kill the bank teller, it’s a mortal sin & it will send you to hell if you don’t repent, but although it’s worse than stealing, you go to the same place…maybe the murder will cause you to suffer more intensely?

If you repent of your sin then you will likely be in purgation much longer for the murder than the theft.

These things, like many others, eg. Calumny are all “intrinsically disordered”. It’s a theological term, not a statement about nature. It means “always wrong to choose”.

Indeed, basically my point is that people should stop throwing around phrases they only superficially understand

 

[Ron_Conte]

These things, like many others, eg. Calumny are all “intrinsically disordered”. It’s a theological term, not a statement about nature. It means “always wrong to choose”.

It is always wrong to choose an act with a bad intention.
It is always wrong to choose an inherently disordered act (bad moral object).
It is always wrong to choose an act that will do more harm than good.

It is always wrong to choose any act with one or more bad fonts of morality.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Sex between a man and a woman isn’t inherently an evil thing. It’s inherently a good thing by nature, and the bonding in a natural marriage predates Christianity and Judaism.

The Magisterium teaches that fornication (heterosexual sex between two unmarried persons) is intrinsically evil. Adultery is also intrinsically evil. So heterosexual sex can be intrinsically evil, or intrinsically good (natural marital relations open to life).

Lust is a distinct sin from the various external acts that are gravely immoral. An unmarried heterosexual couple (non-Catholic) might not realize that premarital sex is gravely immoral. So they might not have the interior sin of lust. But it is still an objective mortal sin for them to have sex outside of marriage.

 

[HelenRose]

Exactly.
Attempts to "qualify " certain sins because we feel badly for a particular group…doesn’t change anything.

Sin outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong.
For anyone. A teen, and adult, gay or straight.

Truth is uncomfortably simple. Isn’t it?

 

[Sarcelle]

Why would you say fornication is disordered? Grave sin, yes, but it is ordered in that there is male and female complimentary.

Disordered or ordered.

Both can send you to hell. Same outcome.

 

[Trident_H]

Maybe the idea is that both can send a guy to hell, but one of them would be easier to atone for? I don’t know. It’s just a thought.

 

[Corki]

Why would you say fornication is disordered? Grave sin, yes, but it is ordered in that there is male and female complimentary.

To answer that question you have to separate the act and the action. The act in fornication is intercourse between a man and a woman. That act itself is not disordered. That act becomes disordered when it is conducted outside of marriage (the action).

With homosexual acts, both the act and the action are disordered.

Someone mentioned calumny. You can use the same comparison with calumny and detraction. Calumny is disordered in both the act (saying something false) and the action (damaging another’s reputation). Detraction is not disordered in the act (telling the truth) but becomes sinful in the action (again using it to damage another’s reputation).

 

[HelenRose]

I wonder what God is thinking about this conversation.

I am trying to imagine watching my children discuss how far they could push my buttons before I react.

I would probably find it a bit entertaining up to a point.

 

[1990Domer]

To answer that question you have to separate the act and the action. The act in fornication is intercourse between a man and a woman. That act itself is not disordered. That act becomes disordered when it is conducted outside of marriage (the action).

With homosexual acts, both the act and the action are disordered.

Someone mentioned calumny. You can use the same comparison with calumny and detraction. Calumny is disordered in both the act (saying something false) and the action (damaging another’s reputation). Detraction is not disordered in the act (telling the truth) but becomes sinful in the action (again using it to damage another’s reputation).

Oh my, this is getting in even a little over my head. But thank you for the explanation.

 

[Rau]

It is always wrong to choose an act with a bad intention.
It is always wrong to choose an inherently disordered act (bad moral object).
It is always wrong to choose an act that will do more harm than good.

It is always wrong to choose any act with one or more bad fonts of morality.

That’s true but misses the point of the explanation, which was to correct the other poster’s thinking/confusion about the meaning of “intrinsically disordered” acts. It is not intrinsically disordered to donate money to the poor to secure praise, but it is immoral. In other words, it is not always wrong to donate money to the poor because such is not intrinsically disordered.