When does homosexuality become a sin?

[JimG]

Other Eric:

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.

I understand your meaning, but I wonder if that is really true. Are people, including homosexuals, so entirely determined by their “sexual orientation” that it is all encompassing? Can’t heterosexuals have close friends of the opposite sex without it becoming a sexual relationship or a temptation? Likewise, can’t homosexuals have close friends of the same sex without it becoming a sexual relationship or a temptation?

It seems to me that this is a new thing–this instant categorization of people by their sexual orientation. The play “My Fair Lady” could not have been written today because the assumption would be that any “confirmed old bachelor” like Professor Higgins must simply be a closet gay. It was not so a generation ago.

A much younger friend of mine once told me of a friend of his in high school. “I knew he was gay before HE did,” he confidently assured me. “How could that be?” I replied. “Maybe he wasn’t ANYthing; maybe he just wasn’t ilnterested, but eventually he simply decided to meet your expectations by declaring himself gay.”

I think that sometimes young people today simply engage in the sexual behaviour that they think is expected of them.

 

[Other_Eric]

JimG:

I understand your meaning, but I wonder if that is really true. Are people, including homosexuals, so entirely determined by their “sexual orientation” that it is all encompassing? Can’t heterosexuals have close friends of the opposite sex without it becoming a sexual relationship or a temptation? Likewise, can’t homosexuals have close friends of the same sex without it becoming a sexual relationship or a temptation?

It seems to me that this is a new thing–this instant categorization of people by their sexual orientation. The play “My Fair Lady” could not have been written today because the assumption would be that any “confirmed old bachelor” like Professor Higgins must simply be a closet gay. It was not so a generation ago.

A much younger friend of mine once told me of a friend of his in high school. “I knew he was gay before HE did,” he confidently assured me. “How could that be?” I replied. “Maybe he wasn’t ANYthing; maybe he just wasn’t ilnterested, but eventually he simply decided to meet your expectations by declaring himself gay.”

I think that sometimes young people today simply engage in the sexual behaviour that they think is expected of them.

Hi JimG!
As I understand the argument, the homosexual is subject to a psychological disorder where sexual compulsion of the worst nature is an inextricable component. As evidence for this, the soaring rates of venereal disease in community are referred to, as well as the shocking statistics over how many sexual partners the average homosexual will have. These are qualities not germane to the heterosexual but a fundamental part of every homosexual. Therefore, though a heterosexual may have a close friendship with a person of the opposite sex, the homosexual has a group of psychological impediments in the way of effectively forming the same type of relationship with a member of his own gender.

As far as whether through subjective coercion a person may finally relent to engaging in same-sex sexual activity, of that I am not so sure. It seems to me that a person would have to be predisposed to the activity in some way to be physically capable of it.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Other Eric:

Lust effects the homosexual differently and more intensely than it would a heterosexual… At some basic level, the homosexual is unable to resist the temptation to sin. Therefore, the answer is to shepherd him away from others.

If homosexuals were truly unable to resist their temptations, then there would be no sin in capitulation. But like other humans, the vast majority of homosexuals are not insanely ruled by the temptation to lust.

I was told once that young men think of sex about every six seconds. How any homosexual’s temptation to lust could be more difficult to evade than that is hard to imagine. I won’t argue the degree of their temptation, though. Except for the insane, they *can *resist. Because of the societal taboos that they face from the time they learn what sexual temptation is, many resist far more mightily than their heterosexual counterparts!

In some sense, we are all unable to resist the temptation to sin… I will grant you that. But be careful that you tempt none into despair. This is a battle that can be won.

Is it advisable for us to admit ourselves quasi-sexual contact or even mental romantic attachment with those with whom we have no hope for marriage? No. This is as true for the attachment two homosexual friends as is it for a woman who is friends with her next door neighbor’s husband or with her pastor. They can be friends, even rather close friends, but they must always observe prudent precautions in their contact. In fact, I would use that as an analogy… if she shouldn’t, they shouldn’t. Let examined conscience be the guide.

 

[Other_Eric]

BLB_Oregon:

If homosexuals were truly unable to resist their temptations, then there would be no sin in capitulation. But like other humans, the vast majority of homosexuals are not insanely ruled by the temptation to lust.

I was told once that young men think of sex about every six seconds. How any homosexual’s temptation to lust could be more difficult to evade than that is hard to imagine. I won’t argue the degree of their temptation, though. Except for the insane, they *can *resist. Because of the societal taboos that they face from the time they learn what sexual temptation is, many resist far more mightily than their heterosexual counterparts!

In some sense, we are all unable to resist the temptation to sin… I will grant you that. But be careful that you tempt none into despair. This is a battle that can be won.

Is it advisable for us to admit ourselves quasi-sexual contact or even mental romantic attachment with those with whom we have no hope for marriage? No. This is as true for the attachment two homosexual friends as is it for a woman who is friends with her next door neighbor’s husband or with her pastor. They can be friends, even rather close friends, but they must always observe prudent precautions in their contact. In fact, I would use that as an analogy… if she shouldn’t, they shouldn’t. Let examined conscience be the guide.

Hi BLB_Oregon!

It is difficult for me to believe that even in the wake of the AIDS epidemic that the gay community’s rampant promiscuity is not indicative of some diminished capacity on the part of the homosexual to resist temptation. A young man may think of sex about every six seconds but he soon grows out of it. If you have ever attended a gay pride parade or leafed through the pages of even “non-sexual” gay publications it is clear the homosexual does not.

Now it may be that during adolescence, the homosexual perceives the disapproval of his peers and that this dissuades him from acting out sexually for a time. I think this might more properly be understood not as a function of chastity but as a function of a selfish desire to maintain his own social standing. The resistance disappears almost immediately when the homosexual is in a more favorable environment.

Thus one can only take the equivalence of the homosexual condition to the heterosexual condition so far. It does not seem logically that the two temptations are equal in degree at all. For this reason I find that for the homosexual who seeks to follow Christ, he must be even more restrictive in the type of relationships he allows himself than the heterosexuals in the examples that you give.

Nor do I believe that I am tempting the homosexual into despair by pointing out what appears to me to be perfectly obvious. It seems to me if the homosexual were to examine his conscience honestly, that he would arrive at nearly the same conclusion. The reality may be grim but it is no less true because it is undesirable.

 

[Lisa_N]

FWIW I think the reason that homosexuals (males!) are known for promiscuity is that we are talking two men, not a man and a woman. Women (usually) demand monogamy as a consequence of engaging in sex. Men may not WANT to be monogamous and may be more subject to temptation, but they want their wife and family, more than they want to be promiscuous.

Consider two males where there are not the usual consequences of a sexual relationship. No worry about pregnancy. No woman demanding monogamy. It’s sort of the worst of both worlds, male sex drives and nothing to tamp it down or to divert it.

What I am saying with this incredibly politically incorrect comment is that I do NOT believe homosexuals have stronger sex drives or more temptations, but they do not have the same societal pressures to rein in that temptation. Sex is not necessarily equated with love, family, or making babies. It is simply a pleasurable activity. So if you just want pleasure, why not play around? So while I don’t think it’s necessarily any more difficult for a homosexual who wants to restrain himself, to do so, frankly requirement for self control simply is not valued in that community. Also while I’ve know of male and female homosexuals sharing a home and friendship but not a sexual relationship, it doesn’t mean they are chaste, they are just not sleeping with their roommate.

Lisa N

 

[Bibliothecaria]

Thanks for all of the information. Obviously there is still debate!

I don’t have much time to post today, I’m afraid.

I do want to say that I don’t think you can judge all homosexuals as being the same, any more than you can judge all heterosexuals as being the same. Regardless of sexual orientation, some people can withstand sexual temptation, and some can’t.

I know we might like to think that all heterosexuals grow up to have normal, healthy, committed relationships and marriages, or else remain chaste. In my experience, that’s every bit as rare today as chaste homosexuals. Promiscuity, adultery, rampant STDs, pornography, purposeful temptation (e.g. scant clothing and suggestive dancing), deviant sex practices (e.g. sado-masochism, spouse-trading), prostitution and its related human trafficking, and all around sleaziness abound among heterosexual society–and often involve married people! And you know, it’s not just in the dark clubs and back streets of the cities–it’s in our media, whether on TV, the Internet, the radio, or print advertisements posted on the street or in the mall.

Would anyone have me believe that this is not as big a catastrophe and plague on humanity as homosexuality? Or that chaste homosexuals aren’t as much a rare blessing as chaste or married heterosexuals? Homosexuals are not that different from heterosexuals! There’s just as much bad and just as much good. And just as much psychological depravity and just as much spiritual integrity.

 

[tuopaolo]

Bibliothecaria:

And just as much psychological depravity and just as much spiritual integrity.

Not really because according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, homosexual acts are acts of “grave depravity.” No similar description is made of hetersoexual acts which contravene the moral law. Homosexual acts are a symptom of the grave depravity of the homosexual’s mind and heart.

And as I’ve tried to point out, it’s not just specific homosexual acts (i.e. sodomy) that is wrong, but also any kind of expression whatesoever of the homosexual inclination which the Catechism teaches is “objectively disordered.” The homosexual desire is not morally neutral and thus any expression of it constitutes a serious moral disorder. It would be the same with pedophilia. Even if you don’t engage in specific sexual acts like intercourse, if you simply express pedophilia, say in writing, it would be sinful. The same would also be true of bestiality. Writing a love song to an animal would be sinful even if you don’t engage or intend to engage in specific sexual acts with it.

 

[Other_Eric]

Lisa N:

FWIW I think the reason that homosexuals (males!) are known for promiscuity is that we are talking two men, not a man and a woman. Women (usually) demand monogamy as a consequence of engaging in sex. Men may not WANT to be monogamous and may be more subject to temptation, but they want their wife and family, more than they want to be promiscuous.

Consider two males where there are not the usual consequences of a sexual relationship. No worry about pregnancy. No woman demanding monogamy. It’s sort of the worst of both worlds, male sex drives and nothing to tamp it down or to divert it.

What I am saying with this incredibly politically incorrect comment is that I do NOT believe homosexuals have stronger sex drives or more temptations, but they do not have the same societal pressures to rein in that temptation. Sex is not necessarily equated with love, family, or making babies. It is simply a pleasurable activity. So if you just want pleasure, why not play around? So while I don’t think it’s necessarily any more difficult for a homosexual who wants to restrain himself, to do so, frankly requirement for self control simply is not valued in that community. Also while I’ve know of male and female homosexuals sharing a home and friendship but not a sexual relationship, it doesn’t mean they are chaste, they are just not sleeping with their roommate.

Lisa N

Hi Lisa N!

I don’t think there’s much of an argument to be made that promiscuity is limited to homosexual men and not women. “Promiscuity among lesbian women is less extreme, but is still higher than among heterosexual women. Many lesbian women also have sex with men. Lesbian women were more than 4 times as likely to have had more than 50 lifetime male partners than heterosexual women. (Fethers K et al. Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women. Sexually Transmitted Infections 2000; 76: 345-9.)” There is obviously some pathology at work here beyond what can be ascribed to the normal libidos of the different sexes. It is therefore hard for me not to assume a diminished capacity on the part of the homosexual to resist his temptations.

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

I would say that romance between homosexuals, even if kept to the levels that would typically be considered ‘chaste’ in a heterosexual dating relationship, are not appropriate because romance has a purpose, and that purpose isn’t just to make the people in the relationship feel good. Romance is intended to bring people together for the purpose of making a total gift of self in marriage. Because homosexuals cannot do this, romance in a homosexual relationship would not turn into mutual giving, which is the purpose of romantic love, but would rather turn into mutual using.
This isn’t the same situation, but it may help you understand why I feel the way I do about this. If I had decided to become a nun, I would consider it inappropriate for me to date, hold hands with, kiss, or have romantic physical closeness with a man for the simple reason that I would be using him for my own pleasure. I would have no intention of actually making the gift of myself to him that marriage would entail. Even if he understood this ahead of time and knew that dating me would not lead to marriage, the focus of the relationship would be on making me feel good physically and/or emotionally and not on discerning if I should make a total gift of self to the other person in marriage. Furthermore, it is possible that these ‘innocent’ expressions of romance would lead both of us into sin.

 

[Other_Eric]

tuopaolo:

And as I’ve tried to point out, it’s not just specific homosexual acts (i.e. sodomy) that is wrong, but also any kind of expression whatesoever of the homosexual inclination which the Catechism teaches is “objectively disordered.” The homosexual desire is not morally neutral and thus any expression of it constitutes a serious moral disorder. It would be the same with pedophilia. Even if you don’t engage in specific sexual acts like intercourse, if you simply express pedophilia, say in writing, it would be sinful. The same would also be true of bestiality. Writing a love song to an animal would be sinful even if you don’t engage or intend to engage in specific sexual acts with it.

Hi tuopaolo!

I understand where you are coming from. Your reasoning leads me to believe however, that the Catholic Church is exactly wrong on the sinless nature of the homosexual condition. You could not say, as the Church does that “homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful,” since simply finding a member of one’s own gender attractive would constitute an expression of homosexuality under your reasoning. The homosexual therefore has a moral obligation to become heterosexual. In other words, the homosexual’s salvation is conditional upon a heterosexual orientation.

 

[Other_Eric]

Grace and Glory:

I would say that romance between homosexuals, even if kept to the levels that would typically be considered ‘chaste’ in a heterosexual dating relationship, are not appropriate because romance has a purpose, and that purpose isn’t just to make the people in the relationship feel good. Romance is intended to bring people together for the purpose of making a total gift of self in marriage. Because homosexuals cannot do this, romance in a homosexual relationship would not turn into mutual giving, which is the purpose of romantic love, but would rather turn into mutual using.
This isn’t the same situation, but it may help you understand why I feel the way I do about this. If I had decided to become a nun, I would consider it inappropriate for me to date, hold hands with, kiss, or have romantic physical closeness with a man for the simple reason that I would be using him for my own pleasure. I would have no intention of actually making the gift of myself to him that marriage would entail. Even if he understood this ahead of time and knew that dating me would not lead to marriage, the focus of the relationship would be on making me feel good physically and/or emotionally and not on discerning if I should make a total gift of self to the other person in marriage. Furthermore, it is possible that these ‘innocent’ expressions of romance would lead both of us into sin.

Hi Grace and Glory!

I’m afraid I don’t understand. Are you saying that every expression of physical affection between two people is neccessarily and expression of eros?

 

[JimG]

Lisa N:

What I am saying with this incredibly politically incorrect comment is that I do NOT believe homosexuals have stronger sex drives or more temptations, but they do not have the same societal pressures to rein in that temptation.

Your analysis sounds reasonable to me. But I would also note that societal pressures against promiscuous heterosexual sex have also been significantly lowered during the past few generations.

The availability of the pill, condoms, abortion, and no fault divorce, have all contributed to a lowering of societal constraints, and a consequent breakdown in premarital chastity and marital fidelity, leading to the destruction of families.

 

[Lisa_N]

JimG:

Your analysis sounds reasonable to me. But I would also note that societal pressures against promiscuous heterosexual sex have also been significantly lowered during the past few generations.

The availability of the pill, condoms, abortion, and no fault divorce, have all contributed to a lowering of societal constraints, and a consequent breakdown in premarital chastity and marital fidelity, leading to the destruction of families.

Oh you are absolutely right about that, although I do hear that the tide is turning a bit with young people. I suspect that some of this promiscuous behavior is geographical. Something like “Sex in the City” is probably a phenonmenon of large urban areas rather than America’s heartland. I also believe that homosexuals in general ARE more promiscuous than heterosexuals in spite of the increase in promiscuity among heterosexuals for the reasons you stated. Again monogamy is just not valued in that culture and while indeed some heterosexuals cheat, I do not believe it’s anywhere near the percentage of the homosexual community. There is a reason AIDS spread so quickly amongst male homosexuals.

Lisa N

 

[Grace_and_Glory]

Other Eric:

Hi Grace and Glory!

I’m afraid I don’t understand. Are you saying that every expression of physical affection between two people is neccessarily and expression of eros?

I’m not saying that every expression of physical affection is an expression of eros. The original poster’s question related to people whose physical affection seems to be an expression of eros, though, so that was what I addressed. That’s also why I said I would not do things that would express “romantic physical closeness” with another person if I knew in advance that I would not marry the other person. Obviously not all physical affection is an expression of eros, but my post was addressing physical affection that was intended to be part of a romantic relationship and therefore was an expression of eros.

 

[Fortiterinre]

If you follow leading Catholic teachers on this topic, like Fr. John Harvey, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, David Morrisson, et al, I think you will find that they tend not to refer to “homosexuality” at all but rather to “same sex attraction.” This might seem like splitting hairs but actually is very important. People are attracted to all kinds of things, most of which we could never write about on these forums! The initial same-sex attraction or sense of difference is very different from same-sex fantasy (explicitly sexual and genital fantasy) and is very different from same-sex activity. True splitting hairs I think comes from people using terms like “gay” and arguing about whether they can have “romance” without genital activity or sin. If they are “identifying” as “gay, lesbian,” etc., then they should really spend some time reflecting on how they were created in the image of God. Cardinal Arinze said not long ago that we must acknowledge “our true sexual identity oriented toward marriage and family.” “Identifying” as “gay” or “restrained gay” does not seem to me to be following Arinze’s advice, whether or not it is technically sinful or not.