Where sin begins in same-sex physical intimacy

[Bookcat]

You may not realize it, but this is precisely what people call homophobia. It’s just like saying “No homo” after you talk about having a good male friend. Your exclamation “May he never read this!” implies quite clearly that homosexual desire is a subject of shame.

You may be right that making out is not a proper activity between friends. But the desire to do so is not a subject for ridicule.

I do not realize it any more than I realize that I am a girl. I am neither a girl nor do I in any way engage in “homophobia” in the proper sense of the term.

And my joke about my friend reading my example is not ridicule nor homophobia.

I do not ridicule. End of story.

But the post 187 there could be an example of unconscious well intentioned ad hominem.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Tis not ridiculing to note that such is not proper for Christians. Or to note that persons of the same gender ought not be “kissing” (I have explained this several times) or dating.

I agree. Neither of those things are ridiculing, in the least. But your tone throughout this conversation occasionally involves comments (like the one I mentioned above) that seem to leave the impression that, for instance, the idea of two men kissing romantically is revolting. Now even if this idea were true, the fact is you have a person in front of you who honestly longs to kiss another woman romantically ought to give you pause.

To give an extreme, and obviously not-perfectly parallel, example…

If I were in a discussion with a person who honestly wanted to romantically kiss his sister, it would not be helpful for me to talk about how shameful and outrageous such an action seems to me. French kissing one’s sister isn’t wrong because it’s shocking or disgusting. It’s wrong for other reasons entirely. So any time I display my shock or disgust, I just make the person I’m talking to feel bad. I don’t help them choose the right thing.

In such a conversation, I would have to stifle my own disgust at the idea of kissing my sister. There’s nothing wrong with my disgust, but the disgust won’t help me love my brother in Christ, so I should leave it at the door.

Oh, and one last thing: I’m sorry if I accused you of anything. That was not my intent.

 

[Bookcat]

I agree. Neither of those things are ridiculing, in the least. But your tone throughout this conversation occasionally involves comments (like the one I mentioned above) that seem to leave the impression that, for instance, the idea of two men kissing romantically is revolting. Now even if this idea were true, the fact is you have a person in front of you who honestly longs to kiss another woman romantically ought to give you pause.

.

One can read the whole of my posts in this long thread…and know the context and where I am coming from. And such would certainly be wrong impression - I write with respect to all persons.

Sometimes you have to write plainly and simply and in giving examples it may be the way to go. Such is not via lack of respect. Pope Francis speaks rather plainly in his daily homilies etc. And yes some could “take offense” at such. But it is not “offense” that is offered.

 

[Bookcat]

I agree.

Yes let there always be “truth and charity” together!!

"“Being concerned for each other” also entails being concerned for their spiritual well-being. Here I would like to mention an aspect of the Christian life, which I believe has been quite forgotten: fraternal correction in view of eternal salvation. Today, in general, we are very sensitive to the idea of charity and caring about the physical and material well-being of others, but almost completely silent about our spiritual responsibility towards our brothers and sisters. This was not the case in the early Church or in those communities that are truly mature in faith, those which are concerned not only for the physical health of their brothers and sisters, but also for their spiritual health and ultimate destiny. The Scriptures tell us: “Rebuke the wise and he will love you for it. Be open with the wise, he grows wiser still, teach the upright, he will gain yet more” (Prov 9:8ff). Christ himself commands us to admonish a brother who is committing a sin (cf. Mt 18:15). The verb used to express fraternal correction - elenchein – is the same used to indicate the prophetic mission of Christians to speak out against a generation indulging in evil (cf. Eph 5:11). The Church’s tradition has included “admonishing sinners” among the spiritual works of mercy. It is important to recover this dimension of Christian charity. We must not remain silent before evil. I am thinking of all those Christians who, out of human regard or purely personal convenience, adapt to the prevailing mentality, rather than warning their brothers and sisters against ways of thinking and acting that are contrary to the truth and that do not follow the path of goodness. Christian admonishment, for its part, is never motivated by a spirit of accusation or recrimination. It is always moved by love and mercy, and springs from genuine concern for the good of the other. As the Apostle Paul says: “If one of you is caught doing something wrong, those of you who are spiritual should set that person right in a spirit of gentleness; and watch yourselves that you are not put to the test in the same way” (Gal 6:1). In a world pervaded by individualism, it is essential to rediscover the importance of fraternal correction, so that together we may journey towards holiness. Scripture tells us that even “the upright falls seven times” (Prov 24:16); all of us are weak and imperfect (cf. 1 Jn 1:8). It is a great service, then, to help others and allow them to help us, so that we can be open to the whole truth about ourselves, improve our lives and walk more uprightly in the Lord’s ways. There will always be a need for a gaze which loves and admonishes, which knows and understands, which discerns and forgives (cf. Lk 22:61), as God has done and continues to do with each of us. "

~Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/messages/lent/documents/hf_ben-xvi_mes_20111103_lent-2012_en.html

Very important to read to the end…

 

[Bookcat]

I

Yes in seeking to discuss things in the forums -at times -either truth or love get not sought to be lived together. Let us all love as we seek together the various good ways in life. Or seek to understand each other or seek to understand a question. Or seek to express or explain a truth etc. Charity in Truth.

More for Pope Benedict XVI:

Caritas in veritate”

Charity in Truth

“Only in truth does charity shine forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity. That light is both the light of reason and the light of faith, through which the intellect attains to the natural and supernatural truth of charity: it grasps its meaning as gift, acceptance, and communion. Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point where it comes to mean the opposite. Truth frees charity from the constraints of an emotionalism that deprives it of relational and social content, and of a fideism that deprives it of human and universal breathing-space. In the truth, charity reflects the personal yet public dimension of faith in the God of the Bible, who is both Agápe and Lógos: Charity and Truth, Love and Word.”

“Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas — is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God’s plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32). To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6).”

~Pope Benedict XVI

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate_en.html

Let us all as Christians - always live the truth with great love! We are all in this together and can help each other on this path -this pilgrimage of life.

.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I think I understand Deo Volente in so far as the distinction he makes is concerned. But that is not helping me decipher what is sinful and what is not.

Where I struggle is this: In the course of the acts (Kissing, making out etc), is it likely that the desire for the acts which are intrinsically disordered (eg. Sexual acts) will arise? If so, does a same-sex couple, do sufficient to avoid sin by: not seeking those sexual acts, and successfully resisting any temptation to those acts? OR, is engaging in acts which are likely to lead to a desire for sexual acts a sinful course? - Bookcat would I think say yes.

But are those acts necessarily likely to lead to a temptation for sex? Is it necessarily bad to do something that has an almost inherent good attached (greater unity) if it could lead to something that is intrinsically disordered?

The reason it uses could in paragraph #111 is because engaging in sex with the same sex is intrinsically disordered and thus an inclination towards that that is objectively disordered so long as the object to which one is inclined towards is intrinsically disordered.

Of course, a single heterosexual person engaging in (appropriate) kissing, making out etc may experience the equivalent temptation, but without sinning on the grounds that there is no objective disorder.

Actually Aquinas said all sex between a man and a woman outside of marriage is intrinsically disordered so their equivalent temptation also happens to include both desiring something intrinsically disordered.

It remains unclear to me whether the Bishops are endorsing anything more than “disinterested friendships” among persons of homosexual orientation.

They aren’t really endorsing anything there, merely talking about what the Catechism means by “objectively disordered” .

 

[Bookcat]

By extension (if I understand), this means that homosexual orientation that seeks other goods - say, comfort, warmth, solace, [add more nouns] - is not objectively disordered, so long as it **cannot **lead to sexual activity.

Friendships -disinterested friendships (as the Catechism notes) I key. One seeks out friends -shares the warmth and comfort of friends. Yes that is humanly good and important.

The debate with Bookcat (et al), as to what is moral or immoral in a close friendship would seem to revolve around whether the actions one engages in (viz. kissing, making out etc.) flow from a desire for these ‘goods’, or in fact evince an inextricable link with, or “can lead to”, sexual activity.

They need not “lead to sexual activity” to be disordered. The inclinations are disordered in themselves yes. But The fact that a person has this disordered inclination does not reflect on the person themselves necessarily. All sorts of disordered inclinations can be in all of us.

But actions that are following that disordered attraction to the same gender such as “kissing” “being a romantic couple” etc are yes disordered.
*
Friendships* of those of the same gender are good and to be just that -friendships (and avoiding the occasions of sin). Not romantic couples or dating etc. Kissing etc is not part of such.

If they are engaging in such --that would be living according the the disordered inclinations. Something that is to be avoided.

To act out of or according to a disordered inclination -is to posit a disordered act.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Friendships -disinterested friendships (as the Catechism notes) I key. One seeks out friends -shares the warmth and comfort of friends. Yes that is humanly good and important.

They need not “lead to sexual activity” to be disordered. The inclinations are disordered yes. But The fact that a person has this disordered inclination does not reflect on the person themselves necessarily.

But actions that are following that disordered attraction to the same gender such as “kissing” “being a romantic couple” etc are yes disordered.
*
Friendships* of those of the same gender are good and to be just that -friendships (and avoiding the occasions of sin). Not romantic couples or dating etc. Kissing etc is not part of such.

If they are engaging in such --that would be living according the the disordered inclinations. Something that is to be avoided.

To act out of or according to a disordered inclination -is to posit a disordered act.

You are using a modern and degraded view of friendship to claim what is acceptable for all time, how internally contradictory and liberal of you.

 

[Bookcat]

You are using a modern and degraded view of friendship to claim what is acceptable for all time, how internally contradictory and liberal of you.

I am using Christian (Catholic) Moral Theology to comment on the questions.

 

[Bookcat]

Quote from the Ask the Apologist - Catholic Answers Apologist staff:

May 23, '11, 6:56 pm

“For two men to live in a romantic relationship with one another, whether or not they abstain from sex, violates chastity because it does not conform to the sexual integrity to which mankind is called.”

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

 

[SMGS127]

Bookcat,

Listen. I had an entire long post thought up responding to you, then I realized, I shouldn’t have to respond to you. I asked you to leave my thread politely once before, and out of respect for me as a human being, I shouldn’t have to ask again. But I will ask politely once more.

Look, I get it. I understand your points. You, your wife, and Ms. Arnold all have the opinion that it violates Catholic moral theology. So I understand you completely. I really do. I have no intellectual deficit that is preventing me from understanding the intent of your posts, and I certainly have no reading disability that is preventing me from reading the posts of yours you endlessly repeat and requote.

So now that that’s dealt with, I will ask you politely for a second time:

Please leave my thread.

I have not been shown this level of disrespect since I was in undergraduate and guys would not leave me alone when I asked them to. If you continue to post on/hijack my thread with repetitive claims that have already been discussed, I will put you on ignore, which I don’t want to have to do, just as I’ve had to take measures to keep overbearing college guys from violating my wishes as well. I do not need you to be my White Knight or my Earthly savior or my Dad. So, now that I have understood your posts completely, please respect my wishes.

 

[SMGS127]

Where I struggle is this: In the course of the acts (Kissing, making out etc), is it likely that the desire for the acts which are intrinsically disordered (eg. Sexual acts) will arise? If so, does a same-sex couple, do sufficient to avoid sin by: not seeking those sexual acts, and successfully resisting any temptation to those acts? OR, is engaging in acts which are likely to lead to a desire for sexual acts a sinful course?

I think the Church has made it abundantly clear that a desire for erotic delight automatically makes a physical action become grave matter. The question then becomes about the morality of non-sexual physical activity whose end is not sexual, in other words the morality of activity whose end is not the disordered object a homosexual orientation can lead to. In this instance, I think it is important that the Church uses this phrasing that Joie linked:

In so far as the homosexual orientation can lead to sexual activity which excludes openness to the generation of new human life and the essential sexual complementarity of man and woman, it is, in this particular and precise sense only, objectively disordered.

I think that, what this ABSOLUTELY says, is that a homosexual orientation is not disordered if directed in a non-sexual manner, as its object would no longer be disordered. However, then one has to consider the inherent [im]morality of specific actions irrespective of intent. In this instance, I point out again that the Church, when discussing the issue, has gone to great lengths to include phrasing detailing that intent of erotic delight is present, and I see no reason for the Church to do so if She wanted to make a broader point. Why would the Church say that passionate kissing done for the object of delight is immoral if She wanted to say that passionate kissing is always immoral? Does the Church say that murder done for the object of thrill-seeking is immoral? No, She says it is always immoral. So I would thus argue that passionate kissing is an act made moral or immoral by the end attributed to it. Thus, I would argue that it is actually less likely for a heterosexual couple to morally make out than a homosexual couple, as a heterosexual couple would more likely be aiming for a sexual end/object.

Of course, a single heterosexual person engaging in (appropriate) kissing, making out etc may experience the equivalent temptation, but without sinning on the grounds that there is no objective disorder.

Depending on their object. A single, heterosexual person making out with the object of erotic delight, even with no near occasion of sin or intention of sex, is committing grave matter. A single, heterosexual person making out with the object of friendship or bonding would likely not be committing grave matter. But again, it is significantly less likely that a Catholic heterosexual person would be making out for friendship than a Catholic homosexual person, due to their differing ends.

It remains unclear to me whether the Bishops are endorsing anything more than “disinterested friendships” among persons of homosexual orientation.

As Joie said, I don’t think they are endorsing anything. But it is important to know that the phrasing “disinterested” refers to the sexual object, not to the intimacy of the individuals involved.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

They need not “lead to sexual activity” to be disordered. The inclinations are disordered in themselves yes.

Again, Bookcat, you are dangerously incorrect. An act that is disordered in itself is intrinsically disordered. A desire or inclination which has as its end a disordered act is not intrinsically disordered, it is objectively disordered.

You cannot call an inclination disordered in itself, because that would suggest that the sensual appetite by which one is inclined to something is itself evil; that an inclination, even without considering its object, is capable of being called evil. But that is contrary to Church teachings regarding concupiscence and the nature of the sensual appetite. An inclination or a desire is only disordered according to its object–it is not disordered due to the fact that it is a desire or an inclination; i.e., it is not disordered in itself.

Perhaps this will illustrate the point. You say that the homosexual “inclinations” are disordered in themselves. Can you describe what these inclinations might be without referring to any acts? I.e., can you describe how these inclinations are,* in themselves*, disordered without making any reference to any disordered acts to which they may be directed? I don’t believe you can.

Keep in mind, too, that the catechism does not refer to homosexual inclinations in the plural as you do here. It refers to the homosexual inclination, in the singular. And it understands that singular inclination to be directed toward homosexual sexual acts. It understands those acts to be intrinsically disordered, and it understands any inclination towards those acts to be objectively disordered.

Moreover, keep in mind that the homosexual acts of which the catechism speaks are clearly and specifically any sexual acts that “close the sexual act to the gift of life.” They are not just any acts that a homosexual may commit with his or beloved. I.e.: a homosexual who wishes to share her life with her beloved is not contemplating an act that would close the sexual act to life. A homosexual who kisses his beloved is not closing the sexual act to life. A homosexual who goes on a date with her beloved is not closing the sexual act to life. A homosexual does not close the sexual act to life by watching a funny movie in the arms of his beloved. A homosexual does not close the sexual act to life by making a really satisfying casserole for her beloved. A homosexual does not close the sexual act to life by reading Tolstoy to her beloved. A homosexual does not close the sexual act to life by laughing at his beloved’s jokes. We could go on and on with this. But you know what would close the sexual act to life? Committing a sexual act that is actually closed to life.

Also, please be aware that you are consistently misreading the CDF when it states that the homosexual “inclination itself must be seen as objectively disordered” when you argue or suggest that the presence of the word “itself” in the phrase means that the CDF says that the inclination is disordered in itself. Because, Bookcat, that word “in” is not present in the construction used by the CDF. You are supplying it in your analysis in order to make it seem as if the CDF conforms to your erroneous beliefs regarding intrinsic or objective disorders.

Finally, Bookcat, I do not say these things because I am not Roman Catholic. I say these things because what you are promulgating here is incorrect even according to the terms of the magisterial teachings you have cited.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Bookcat]

Grace & Peace!

Have a blessed day

Pax

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12132919&postcount=169

 

[Bookcat]

Quote from the Ask the Apologist - Catholic Answers Apologist staff:

May 23, '11, 6:56 pm

“For two men to live in a romantic relationship with one another, whether or not they abstain from sex, violates chastity because it does not conform to the sexual integrity to which mankind is called.”

Michelle Arnold
Catholic Answers Apologist

 

[Bookcat]

Let us remember that this is a public* forum*. Where questions of Catholic Moral Theology get discussed.

I have provided both documents from the Church couragerc.net/Church_Documents.html and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12132922&postcount=170 etc, quotes from Catholic Answers Staff Apologists forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12135919&postcount=198 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12132118&postcount=158 as well as have sought in my words to explain the matter at question. In all things I have sought to be respectful of persons and sought to bring truth in charity (as discussed in 192 and 193 posts). If there are those in a “forum” who do not wish to respond to another in that forum - they need not. I certainly respect such persons who may not wish to respond to me and indeed love them. And I may not wish to respond to others - not for lack of love but because it will tend to go round and round and time is limited. Or just cause your time is limited. But it remains a* forum* where things get discussed by many persons.

And being a Catholic Answers forum - may all our discussions always lead to truth with the Catholic Faith - to answers in keeping with orthodox Catholic Theology.

Again as for me I love and respect all here and

“I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm”

(Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons)

 

[dedo]

Let us remember that this is a public* forum*. Where questions of Catholic Moral Theology get discussed.

I have provided both documents from the Church couragerc.net/Church_Documents.html and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12132922&postcount=170 etc, quotes from Catholic Answers Staff Apologists forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12135919&postcount=198 and forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12132118&postcount=158 as well as have sought in my words to explain the matter at question. In all things I have sought to be respectful of persons and sought to bring truth in charity (as discussed in 192 and 193 posts). If there are those in a “forum” who do not wish to respond to another in that forum - they need not. I certainly respect such persons who may not wish to respond to me and indeed love them. And I may not wish to respond to others - not for lack of love but because it will tend to go round and round and time is limited. Or just cause your time is limited. But it remains a* forum* where things get discussed by many persons.

And being a Catholic Answers forum - may all our discussions always lead to truth with the Catholic Faith - to answers in keeping with orthodox Catholic Theology.

Again as for me I love and respect all here and

“I do none harm, I say none harm, I think none harm”

(Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons)

"Again as for me I love and respect all here and . . . "

Not true.

Your opinion has been acknowledged, debated, and you have been asked to leave a couple times by the OP who is searching for an answer to a difficult question.

After being asked to leave, you post more.

Thus, your actions are consistent with being more concerned with your own opinion and right to post what you want, where you want, than with anyone else’s feelings.

I do not know the answer to the OP’s question.

There must be priests familiar with gay issues.

That is who I would ask.

Good luck.

 

[Bookcat]

"Again as for me I love and respect all here and . . . "

Not true.

.

Yes true!

…

Such would be a mischaracterizing my posts. One may read through all my posts in context.

And again as I just noted above this is a* public forum *on Catholic Answers - not private threads.

Many many eyes read these posts and it is important to provide Catholic Answers . If people just left because others do not like or agree with the answers given (such as I provided from Catholic Answers Staff) or asked them not to be there- many threads would be rather short. And the truth in charity would run the risk of being obscured. Especially if the thread continued for some time and earlier posts where no longer read.

If something was understood not in the way it was intended - certainly I apologize for not finding a better way -I certainly do not intend any harm as I noted above. And yes some persons may not always understand each other or how something is meant etc. We all have backgrounds and things can appear in ways they were not intended by the other person due to such. And an internet forum has the disadvantage of being only writing without personal presence which is helpful in communication … In any case this thread seemed of ended and I thought that we had all just let it end.

What I wrote in that last post above- I refer to again- I mean in particular that last part - which yes I truly mean.

 

[dedo]

Well I will agree that the internet falls far short of face to face communication and it is easy to misread intentions.

Since the thread does seem to be over, I will say that I really don’t know when interaction crosses the line to impropriety, so I tend to be overly cautious – possibly at the expense of not getting to know interesting people. That could be a mistake.

In the case of this forum, few people here are professional religious, so any of us can be wrong on any issue.

Thus, I tend to weigh the feelings of the posters more than the need to post a point of view.

 

[SMGS127]

Well I will agree that the internet falls far short of face to face communication and it is easy to misread intentions.

Since the thread does seem to be over, I will say that I really don’t know when interaction crosses the line to impropriety, so I tend to be overly cautious – possibly at the expense of not getting to know interesting people. That could be a mistake.

In the case of this forum, few people here are professional religious, so any of us can be wrong on any issue.

Thus, I tend to weigh the feelings of the posters more than the need to post a point of view.

The problem for me dedo is not his intentions at all, for I could care less what they are. His writing style on the thread is abusive, posting multiple times in a row repeatedly to try to drown out actual discussion, often writing nothing of substance but merely posting a link to an earlier post of his, for example. He also refused to source any of his claims, besides an avowed NARTH supporter eek who just happens to be a CAF apologist, arguing that he was a theologian and didn’t need to. He would not address any of the responses to him, instead repeating himself over and over and over again (even going so far, again, as to link to previous posts of his repeatedly). He would not post any Magisterial references or even Doctoral references, instead arguing that it was a position that needed no Magisterial evidence. He would not discuss why the Church did not discuss it when She was so keen to discuss homosexuality, contraception, and abortion, despite lower prevalences of abortion/homosexuality in the modern age than romantic friendships in the Western world for the first 1900 years. Eventually I got tired of dealing with someone who would not defend their posts or respond to others, and for the first time ever, I asked someone to leave my thread.

As far as the thread itself, the complete inability for anyone to actually reference Magisterial teaching on the issue leads me to three conclusions:

A) Same-sex romances are not inherently immoral and can be engaged in as long as they do not involve immoral physical activity or lust. These can involve anything up to light kissing for sure.

B) In addition to sex, making out is absolutely immoral when done for the sake of erotic delight, though this is true for any two unmarried people (thank you Cesar!)

C) Making out for an increase of the emotional bond with no desire for lust or erotic delight is iffy and likely needs discernment with a priest and Christ.