Why such a bias against homosexuals?

[melensdad]

Please bear with me. I am still curious. Just what do you mean by
“homosexual tendencies” and “same sex attraction”? What is that attraction? Attraction of what?

Catholics often refer to homosexuality as SSA, or Same Sex Attraction. To have “tendencies” is to be tempted to do, be attracted to do, or to do things of a particular nature. So someone with homosexual tendencies or same sex attraction would be attracted to people of the same gender.

According to Webster’s On-line Dictionary: m-w.com/
Homosexual
Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'sek-sh(&-)w&l, -'sek-sh&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : **of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex **

• ho·mo·sex·u·al·ly adverb

Homosexuality
Main Entry: ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-"sek-sh&-'wa-l&-tE
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being homosexual
2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

 

[melensdad]

For those of us who feel called to minister to those with SSA, it is important that we call attention to the tendency of people to call “bias”.

First, I do not feel called to minister to those with SSA.

I do, however, feel it is valid to point out that some here on CAF are less than tolerant of those with SSA. So perhaps my “ministry” is to the folks who do not understand the people who struggle with SSA, not the people who have SSA.

 

[agangbern]

But if you want further evidence that there is at least some confusion and bias, simply look 2 posts up from your post to the question posed to me. Does that not show at least a level of confusion on this issue or lack of understanding when someone asks*** “is there really a difference?”*** Further there are posts in this very thread linking pedophiles to gays as if the 2 are one in the same, does that not also show some level of bias, confusion, and lack of understanding? BTW, no need to answer me, it is a rhetorical question.

If ever there is confusion here, it may also be attributed to an apparently false definition of the word “homosexual” that is subtly attempted to be injected here. Webster defines homosexual as follows: of, characterized by or involving sexual attraction felt by a person for another person of the same sex; a person (esp. male) so attracted.
Such kind of attraction, to be frank, is lust in the heart. And what does Jesus say of lust? He said, “*But I say to you that anyone who so much as looks with lust at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” *(Mathew 5:28) If a man who looks at a woman with lust already committed a sin, how much more sin there is do you think if a man looks at another man with lust in his heart?

 

[melensdad]

If a man who looks at a woman with lust already committed a sin, how much more sin there is do you think if a man looks at another man with lust in his heart?

I tend to think both are similar sins.

Both sinners should be welcome in our Church. Neither action is condoned in our Church, nor should they be.

 

[agangbern]

I tend to think both are similar sins.

Both sinners should be welcome in our Church. Neither action is condoned in our Church, nor should they be.

Do you mean to say that homosexuality is in fact a sin?
What do you mean by “both sinners should be welcome in our church”?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

WOW that is a good point too. And I’m now ashamed I didn’t even consider it.

It just seems to me that we need to welcome them into our church in the same way we welcome in every other sinner, because that is all we are.

Why would a chaste homosexual want to be involved with the “gay community” unless it’s for conversion?

 

[agangbern]

Why would a chaste homosexual want to be involved with the “gay community” unless it’s for conversion?

Here again is another phrase that in the final analysis contradicts itself. I am referring to the phrase “chaste homosexual”.

 

[melensdad]

Here again is another phrase that in the final analysis contradicts itself. I am referring to the phrase “chaste homosexual”.

Why can’t a homosexual be chaste?

Heterosexuals can be chaste. There is no reason that a homosexual can’t be chaste.
Semper Fi:

Why would a chaste homosexual want to be involved with the “gay community” unless it’s for conversion?

Perhaps it is someone who is just finding religion, or perhaps it is someone who is coming back to the Church. There are many possible reasons why they may be involved or may have been involved, with the gay community. Further, there are Christian gay communities and ministries that offer support. Some of those ministries are faithful to the Catholic teachings and many of them are not in line with Catholic teaching.

agangbern:

Do you mean to say that homosexuality is in fact a sin?
What do you mean by “both sinners should be welcome in our church”?

The act of homosexual relations is a sin. Just like the act of heterosexual relations is a sin when it is outside of wedlock.

I believe that Jesus welcomed all sinners. And as we are all sinners, I believe we are all welcome in our church. However, while we are welcome into the church, it does not mean that we are welcome to participate in the sacrament of the Eucharist if we are in a state of mortal sin. So we can come to mass, but we cannot fully participate in the mass if we are in a state of moral sin. Further, the church does not condone some activities and it should not condone those activities.

It matters not if you are a heterosexual sleeping around or a homosexual sleeping around . . . both are participating in sin.

 

[fix]

There is no reason to assume that someone with same sex attraction is a pervert who will abuse children, etc.

Why is it acceptable to call one with an attraction toward children a pervert? Or call one who has abused children a pervert? Is that a bias?

 

[melensdad]

Why is it acceptable to call one with an attraction toward children a pervert? Or call one who has abused children a pervert? Is that a bias?

Yes it clearly is a bias. And within the general definitions accepted by most adults, and also by our legal system, it is a sexual perversion to abuse a child. Perversion being not normal or acceptable. Now if we were talking about the Muslim culture they clearly have a different standard than the Western/Christian standard as can be seen in this link they do not seem to tolerate abuse of children, but do bring it up, so it clearly is an issue. Further, they do seem to condone casual homosexual relationships with young men as being acceptable.
frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=D51B2383-01A0-4896-B174-19F115EC0942

 

[bilop]

I just wanted to point out something. In this thread people have been saying that all mortal sins are equal, and we should judge homosexuality the same as all other sexual sins.

This is not quite right. Sodomy is one of a series of sins that “cry to heaven for vengeance” and has traditionally been viewed as worse than simple fornication. So, just as Abortion/Murder is worse than skipping Mass, sodomy is worse than fornication.

God Bless

From Catholic Answers, Quick Questions

Q: What are sins that cry to heaven for vengeance and sins against the Holy Spirit?

A: Most Catholics are familiar with the term mortal sin. Mortal sins deprive the soul of grace. They are serious transgressions of God’s law, done freely and deliberately with a clear understanding of what they are. Their result is to deny a soul entrance to heaven.

There are particular mortal sins that are so evil that they are said to be sins that cry to heaven for vengeance: murder (Gen. 4:10), sodomy (Gen. 17:20-21), oppression of the poor (Ex. 2:23), and defrauding workers of their just wages (James 5:4).

Sins against the Holy Spirit are mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category. They are despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth.

 

[fix]

Yes it clearly is a bias. And within the general definitions accepted by most adults, and also by our legal system, it is a sexual perversion to abuse a child. Perversion being not normal or acceptable.

What I am trying to understand is why it is acceptable to label one class of sinners perverts and not another? Or is it better to lable actions as perverted rather than define the entire person by their disordered acts?

 

[melensdad]

I just wanted to point out something. In this thread people have been saying that all mortal sins are equal, and we should judge homosexuality the same as all other sexual sins.

Well I would hope that I did not give that impression but it is possible that I may have done so. It would not have been my intent. My only intent is that we should welcome all sinners to our church as we are all sinners ourselves. The accounting for the sins is what the sacrament of reconciliation is used for and is obviously not for us to sit and judge.

What I am trying to understand is why it is acceptable to label one class of sinners perverts and not another? Or is it better to lable actions as perverted rather than define the entire person by their disordered acts?

It would have been poor wording on my part. I will defer to your wording as more appropriate. But you may want to closely look at my wording where I defended people with SSA and said there is no reason to consider them perverts. Still, my wording was not completely precise.

 

[fix]

It would have been poor wording on my part. I will defer to your wording as more appropriate. But you may want to closely look at my wording where I defended people with SSA and said there is no reason to consider them perverts. Still, my wording was not completely precise.

I am not trying to be difficult. I admit it is a fine line.

I noticed no one else mentioned the term perverted, in reference to those attracted to children, was wrong. If you said that about homosexual acts it would be a different story.

Why the double standard?

 

[bilop]

What I am trying to understand is why it is acceptable to label one class of sinners perverts and not another? Or is it better to lable actions as perverted rather than define the entire person by their disordered acts?

Well, it’s probably not a good idea.

I think it goes back a long way in Moral Theology. A misuse of a natural act (i.e. fornication) has long been viewed as far less serious than an unnatural act (i.e. sodomy). Aquinas talks about this at length. Interestingly, Aquinas would include masturbation as unnatural, and say that was worse than fornication as well.

God Bless

 

[melensdad]

I noticed no one else mentioned the term perverted, in reference to those attracted to children, was wrong. If you said that about homosexual acts it would be a different story.

Why the double standard?

Well I’m not sure what exactly you are driving towards here. In prior posts there were links to homosexuality and pedophiles. My point was to UN-link those two things. A pedophile is acting in a perverted way within the definitions of our legal and social system. A homosexual is certainly not automatically a pedophile, in fact there is no causal relation to homosexuality and pedophelia that I am aware of.

But if you are asking if a pedophile is a pervert then I would answer yes he or she is a pervert in regards to their sexual preference within the laws and norms of our society.

If you are asking if acts of pedophelia are perverted, then I would also answer yes in the same way.

I’m very unclear on what you are asking or suggesting. Are you saying that same sex pedophiles are acting in a perverted way, but heterosexual pedophiles are acceptable? I would not suggest that any pedophile activity is normal, acceptable, legal or moral and all of it is a perversion.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi melensdad,

What’s with the “laws and norms of society” comments? You started this thread in regards to Catholics discussing homosexual issues on a Catholic forum. That’s different than the “laws and norms of society.” I think it is okay for Catholics to refer to homosexuality as a perversion, though I prefer the Church’s term - disorder (it can be argued that a disordered act is also a perversion).

Regarding homosexuality and pedophilia, I would wholeheartedly agree…except, in common usage, the term pedophilia has been…well…perverted… It is now used when referring to sex with a minor, whereas it is supposed to refer to sex with a pre-pubescent child. This is an important distinction.

For example, in our priest scandal 80% of the victims were teenage boys. Indeed, I would say that homosexual men could be linked to sexual abuse of teenage boys - just as I would link sexual abuse of teenage girls to heterosexual men. Neither group are pedophiles. Since people now use the term pedophilia to refer to sex with a minor, it confuses matters.

Well I’m not sure what exactly you are driving towards here. In prior posts there were links to homosexuality and pedophiles. My point was to UN-link those two things. A pedophile is acting in a perverted way within the definitions of our legal and social system. A homosexual is certainly not automatically a pedophile, in fact there is no causal relation to homosexuality and pedophelia that I am aware of.

But if you are asking if a pedophile is a pervert then I would answer yes he or she is a pervert in regards to their sexual preference within the laws and norms of our society.

If you are asking if acts of pedophelia are perverted, then I would also answer yes in the same way.

I’m very unclear on what you are asking or suggesting. Are you saying that same sex pedophiles are acting in a perverted way, but heterosexual pedophiles are acceptable? I would not suggest that any pedophile activity is normal, acceptable, legal or moral and all of it is a perversion.

 

[rlg94086]

My point was to UN-link those two things.

BTW…there is no United Nations link to either homosexuality or pedophilia…at least that I know of.

 

[melensdad]

What’s with the “laws and norms of society” comments?

Just trying to clarify terms a little bit more. No other reason. It appears that my attempt to clarify may have muddied. But I agree with what you wrote.

BTW…there is no United Nations link to either homosexuality or pedophilia…at least that I know of.

Nice bit of levity added to a serious thread. But as I’m obviously unable to clearly express some of my points, I’m glad you realize that the United Nations has nothing to do with my post

 

[agangbern]

Why can’t a homosexual be chaste?

Heterosexuals can be chaste. There is no reason that a homosexual can’t be chaste.

The definition of homosexual itself is unchaste. Remember the definition? It is essentially a man lusting for another man. Lusting for another, according to Jesus, is a sin. (Mathew 5:28) The phrase “chaste homosexual” is like the phrase “innocent criminal”. It contradicts itself. Heterosexual, on the other hand, has a neutral definition.

The act of homosexual relations is a sin. Just like the act of heterosexual relations is a sin when it is outside of wedlock.

Yes, but sin is not only overt acts. The lusting condition (with which the homosexual is defined) as said above, is already a sin.

I believe that Jesus welcomed all sinners. And as we are all sinners, I believe we are all welcome in our church.

Yes,sinners are welcome. But not their sins. Not their lusting state. In other words, the criminal must cease to be a criminal; the homosexual must cease being a homosexual.