When does homosexuality become a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bibliothecaria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bibliothecaria

Guest
I am asking this because I have some very beloved friends who are homosexual, and though they live very virtuous lives, they are often criticized for being homosexual. Even though they don’t have a really sexual relationship, people tell them that they will go to hell.

At what point does a relationship between two people of the same sex become sinful? It is my understanding that it is only a serious sin when, as the Bible says, a man lies with another man as if with a woman–by which I understand having sexual intercourse. Am I correct in that?

If two men have a loving relationship, with romance, and with some physical closeness, such as holding hands, kissing (although very discreetly, not openly in public), but they don’t ever engage in sexual acts…are they still considered to be chaste? Or is their relatioship unacceptable?

Please don’t think that I approve of homosexuality… I can’t understand it myself. And I feel that it is way too pervasive, glamorized, and even encouraged in our society. These friends of mine are very much an exception to the rule, in that they do not participate in any kind of gay “scene” or “lifestyle.” They do not expect or enjoy any kind of special attention because they are gay. And I truly believe that they abstain from sexual acts. They are both born Catholics, and they love the Church, but they feel marginalized and afraid of rejection. I’d like to offer them some advice, and perhaps some consolation. But I don’t know exactly where the Church would stand on their relationship.

I appreciate any help!
 
I think you might look up the definition of “occasion for sin”
 
Hi Bibliothecaria!

After you are done looking up “occasion of sin” you might want to look up the sin of scandal. To put it concisely, the homosexual sins if he is both known to have the attractions and is seen in close association with a member of his own gender. Even if no sexual sin is extant between the individuals, others might assume that there is and assume acceptance for that behavior
 
id say when you get to the point where you’d consider them a couple. For example. i have some female friends where we can be very physically close or comfortable (sleeping on eachother’s shoulders in mixed company, i accidentally fell asleep in her hotel room once, etc), but it isnt sexual, strict agape, and we both know that. but people who are together can do that too, but the intention is different. get it?
 
OH! also you must guard against occasion for sin and develop the right mindset. i used to have to guard my thoughts around her, but now it is very friendly and i would never think of anything bad and only at that point did i feel truly comfortable with our relationship.
 
40.png
Bibliothecaria:
At what point does a relationship between two people of the same sex become sinful?
Click to expand...
Any kind of homosexual relationship is sinful even if no sexual acts are committed. So even if for instance it were a relationship limited to sending letters back and forth it would be sinful.
It is my understanding that it is only a serious sin when, as the Bible says, a man lies with another man as if with a woman–by which I understand having sexual intercourse. Am I correct in that?
Click to expand...
No you are not correct. Any expression of homosexuality whatsoever even if it doesn’t involve any touching is sinful.
If two men have a loving relationship, with romance, and with some physical closeness, such as holding hands, kissing (although very discreetly, not openly in public), but they don’t ever engage in sexual acts…are they still considered to be chaste? Or is their relatioship unacceptable?
Click to expand...
It is absolutely unacceptable. Expressions of homosexual “romance” are sins even if what you term “sexual acts” are not engaged in. It is NOT merely an occasion of sin, it by its very nature is a sin in and of itself.
 
Any kind of homosexual relationship is sinful even if no sexual acts are committed. So even if for instance it were a relationship limited to sending letters back and forth it would be sinful.
Click to expand...
where do you get THAT?
 
Strictly speaking, homosexuality as a condition is not sinful.
Sodomy is a sin, as would be the placing of oneself in the occasion of sin where the sin of sodomy would be likely to occur.

Also, there is the potential for the sin of scandal, as the above posts mentioned.
 
Hm, there seems to be some disagreement on this issue. I think I’m even more confused! :confused:

I totally understand the occasion of sin–holding hands and kissing can easily lead to other things, and it is best to avoid even the least temptation.

But the sin of scandal…isn’t that subjective? Assumptions can be influenced by malicious intents. Today, accusations like “gay” and “homo” and worse are very carelessly thrown around, and often used to purposely slander others for no reason at all. Ha, it was even done to John Kerry and John Edwards. And it was done to one of my friends before he was in a relationship with anyone–and as if that weren’t bad enough, I was accused of being his “cover.” :rolleyes:

**TuoPaolo, **is what you said based on Church teaching? And if so, does that mean that love letters between a boyfriend and girlfriend is the same as fornication? And are there clear-cut criteria between what distinguishes love letters from other letters?

I understand that sexuality is expressly intended for married husbands and wives, and that to violate that intention is sinful. Are other expressions of romance truly regarded as violating sexuality? I know a line has to be drawn somewhere, but letters?

Maybe I’m a hopeless romantic, but I believe there is such a thing as innocent love, and even innocent romance. If scripture or any other Church writings have said otherwise, we need to know, of course, but give us a source, please. I don’t mean to doubt you where it’s not warranted, but I’m having a hard time distinguishing between personal opinions and Church teachings. Please be patient! :o Thanks.
 
40.png
JimG:
Strictly speaking, homosexuality as a condition is not sinful. Sodomy is a sin, as would be the placing of oneself in the occasion of sin where the sin of sodomy would be likely to occur.

Also, there is the potential for the sin of scandal, as the above posts mentioned.
Click to expand...
That first part makes sense, and I do recall reading it somewhere on this site, or in one of the postings in a forum.

I’m still not clear on the sin of scandal. I’m probably just being tired and unlucid right now. I’ll have to revisit it tomorrow… yawn

I really appreciate everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut. I am sure it will make greater sense soon.
 
OK, I just couldn’t let this go until I found an understandable definition of the sin of scandal. I found the below discussion at the New Catholic Encyclopedia site, under “Scandal.” trosch.org/for/scan/nce-scan.htm
Code: 
From the Greek http://www.trosch.org/for/scan/greek3.gif  ( F6V<*"8@< ) in the sense of "offense, downfall, or a stumbling against something"; in popular use scandal signifies an objective act, person, or thing that gives offense or shocks the moral feelings of people. Thus it might be said that the slum section of a large city is a "scandal." Often it is used in a subjective sense to signify the reaction in people to the knowledge or report of something shameful or discreditable. In this case the word is used to refer not so much to the person or act that causes the shame, but to the reaction itself. In this sense a decent citizen might be said to take "scandal" at the sight of notorious slums.

    	**In moral theology, however, scandal signifies not so much something shameful and therefore likely to cause a reaction of indignation and outrage, but something that provides occasion and incitement to the sin of another**. It is not necessary that sin be actually committed in consequence of it; it is enough that the evil act or word provides incitement to wrongdoing, and it is precisely in this that the sin of scandal consists. If charity obliges us to assist our neighbor in his spiritual and temporal necessities, it obliges us still more strongly not to cause him spiritual loss or ruin.
So…really it comes down to our duty to set a good example for our fellow humans, making sure that nothing we do, or fail to do, can be misconstrued as an enticement or justification of sin. I can see this being especially critical where younger, less experienced, and/or more impressionable people are concerned.

I suppose that if someone saw my two friends together, they might draw the conclusion that any and all contact between unrelated men is acceptable, up to and including sodomy. Now I would never draw such a conclusion, and my friends would never want that conclusion to be drawn by anyone. But it would be negligent to assume that someone else couldn’t draw it.

Am I on target here? If so, then I think my friends will be understanding and will do their best not to give anyone wrong ideas. It’s pretty sad though…the two of them are already much better examples than lots of other homosexuals–or other people in general! 😦 But I guess we can’t afford to look at things relatively.
 
40.png
Bibliothecaria:
I am asking this because I have some very beloved friends who are homosexual, and though they live very virtuous lives, they are often criticized for being homosexual. Even though they don’t have a really sexual relationship, people tell them that they will go to hell.

At what point does a relationship between two people of the same sex become sinful? It is my understanding that it is only a serious sin when, as the Bible says, a man lies with another man as if with a woman–by which I understand having sexual intercourse. Am I correct in that?

If two men have a loving relationship, with romance, and with some physical closeness, such as holding hands, kissing (although very discreetly, not openly in public), but they don’t ever engage in sexual acts…are they still considered to be chaste? Or is their relatioship unacceptable?

Please don’t think that I approve of homosexuality… I can’t understand it myself. And I feel that it is way too pervasive, glamorized, and even encouraged in our society. These friends of mine are very much an exception to the rule, in that they do not participate in any kind of gay “scene” or “lifestyle.” They do not expect or enjoy any kind of special attention because they are gay. And I truly believe that they abstain from sexual acts. They are both born Catholics, and they love the Church, but they feel marginalized and afraid of rejection. I’d like to offer them some advice, and perhaps some consolation. But I don’t know exactly where the Church would stand on their relationship.

I appreciate any help!
Click to expand...
If a married man acted in these ways with a woman who is not his wife, would it be sinful? Yes. These acts cause scandal and are sinful.
 
Hi Bibliothecaria!

I’m sorry, but in order for your friends to avoid the sin of scandal at this point, they must completely divest themselves of any association with each other whatsoever. For the homosexual to have any close relation to a member of his own gender is for him to enter into the near occasion of the sin of scandal. This may seem cruel, but the Way of the Cross was never meant to be pleasant.
 
if these friends of yours are determined to lead a chaste life they should be getting their spiritual direction from the priest in confession, not from strangers on a public forum.
 
40.png
Bibliothecaria:
**TuoPaolo, **is what you said based on Church teaching?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
And if so, does that mean that love letters between a boyfriend and girlfriend is the same as fornication?
Click to expand...
No. Because those love letters will be expressing a desire which is not objectively disordered. The Church teaches that homosexual desires, even mere homosexual inclinations, are objectively disordered:

**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2358.htm

This is from the 2nd edition of the Catechism. The 1st edition was corrected to include the statement that the inclination is objectively disordered.
And are there clear-cut criteria between what distinguishes love letters from other letters?
Click to expand...
It’s pretty simple. Anything that expresses a homosexual desire of any kind whatsoever is sinful.
Are other expressions of romance truly regarded as violating sexuality?
Click to expand...
Yes because as I quoted above the Church teaches that the homosexual inclination itself is objectively disordered.
 
Even if there isn’t a sexual act, isn’t there something about “lusting in one’s heart” that is a sin? People of the same sex can certainly be close friends and can express affection. However there is nothing sexual about my hugging a girlfriend because there is no lust in my heart. If your friends, although not sexual are lusting for each other but controlling their actions, it still sounds like they are sliding down the slippery slope. A very sad situation. I know you pray for them as I do for my homosexual friends. It’s heartbreaking frankly.

Lisa N
 
I agree with above posters: the concern is providing themselves with a near occasion of sin, scandalizing others, and considering whether others who follow their example are likely to be successful in avoiding sin.

Having said that, I envy no one who has this temptation to deal with. Everyone has a need for friendship and understanding by others, and those in a similar plight can offer particular help. I have no doubt that when a homosexual has homosexual friends who are also trying to live a chaste life it will prove to be as beneficial as AA is for alcoholics or Weight Watchers is for those having issues with food. For that reason, I think it is an unnecessary and unwise burden to expect homosexual Catholics not to associate with each other. To the contrary, healthy friendships with other homosexuals who are commited to chastity are to be encouraged.

For analogous reasons, I think it would be wise for them to avoid close association with those who are not living a chaste life: not in way of judgement, but in way of recognizing the particular temptation those associations pose to them.
 
Hi guys!

The harsh reality is that the homosexual is caught up in a catch-22 from which there is no escape. In order to be a faithful Christian he must have no intimate contact with members of his own gender. This, I would point out, renders NARTH’s therapies woefully misguided. The homosexual can’t develop the close non-sexual relationships with members of his own gender that are required by the therapy because, as Lisa N pointed out in her post, he is constitutively unable to form such a friendship. Even if he attempts to do so he is forsaken by God to lust in his heart. Given this logic, the Church’s Courage ministry is a fraud because it leads the homosexual out of a sexual sin and into a spiritual one.
 
Other Eric:
The harsh reality is that the homosexual is caught up in a catch-22 from which there is no escape.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. If it were, our churches should be divided as are the Orthodox synagogues, with the women concealed behind curtains so the heterosexuals wouldn’t distract each other from prayer. We should dress plainly and strictly as the Amish do, so we would be free of envy and vanity. We should also take a vow of silence… I think you can see where I’m going with this!

We don’t believe that the possibility of temptation is the same as the inevitability of sin. If a person with an addiction to food can deal with it without starving, surely a homosexual can have meaningful contact with their own gender–even with other homosexuals–without falling hopelessly into lust. You can’t be so afraid of sin that you refuse life itself. God did not set us up in a losing game, any of us. Rather, the cross *will *triumph. That is the Good News!
 
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
This is simply not true. If it were, our churches should be divided as are the Orthodox synagogues, with the women concealed behind curtains so the heterosexuals wouldn’t distract each other from prayer. We should dress plainly and strictly as the Amish do, so we would be free of envy and vanity. We should also take a vow of silence… I think you can see where I’m going with this!

We don’t believe that the possibility of temptation is the same as the inevitability of sin. If a person with an addiction to food can deal with it without starving, surely a homosexual can have meaningful contact with their own gender–even with other homosexuals–without falling hopelessly into lust. You can’t be so afraid of sin that you refuse life itself. God did not set us up in a losing game, any of us. Rather, the cross *will *triumph. That is the Good News!
Click to expand...
Hi BLB_Oregon!
The problem that you seem to be missing is that the homosexual temptation has been presented in this forum as something that is strikingly different from a similar heterosexual temptation. Lust effects the homosexual differently and more intensely than it would a heterosexual. This is, after all, one of the reasons that we would withhold Holy Orders from a homosexual. At some basic level, the homosexual is unable to resist the temptation to sin. Therefore, the answer is to shepherd him away from others.

Now, as I said, a life of isolation may seem cruel but the Way of the Cross is not meant to be pleasant and as my father is fond of pointing out, isolation made saints out of the hermits. The Cross will triumph, but it does not seem to me to be the way in which you would have imagined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top