Why such a bias against homosexuals?

[melensdad]

The definition of homosexual itself is unchaste. Remember the definition? It is essentially a man lusting for another man.
. . .
The lusting condition (with which the homosexual is defined) as said above, is already a sin.
. . .
the criminal must cease to be a criminal; the homosexual must cease being a homosexual.

So someone who has SSA, but who buries that attraction under prayer is still lustful because he or she has SSA? The SSA is still there, they are fighting it, but you will not welcome them into the Church until they fully “cease being a homosexual”?

Maybe I’m not understanding what you wrote but if, I as a man, look at a woman, I can look at here WITHOUT lust, but you suggest that someone who is a homosexual cannot do the same? I ask because you implied they are always in a lusting condition. Are you saying that a man with SSA is ALWAYS looking upon other men with lust? And a woman with SSA is ALWAYS looking up other women with lust?

I guess I understand things differently.

It seems to me there are those folks here at CAF with SSA who are NOT always in a state of lust and who are attempting to be good Catholics, leading a chaste life, and admitting that they are sinners just like I admit I am a sinner.

 

[goofyjim]

So someone who has SSA, but who buries that attraction under prayer is still lustful because he or she has SSA? The SSA is still there, they are fighting it, but you will not welcome them into the Church until they fully “cease being a homosexual”?

Maybe I’m not understanding what you wrote but if, I as a man, look at a woman, I can look at here WITHOUT lust, but you suggest that someone who is a homosexual cannot do the same? I ask because you implied they are always in a lusting condition. Are you saying that a man with SSA is ALWAYS looking upon other men with lust? And a woman with SSA is ALWAYS looking up other women with lust?

I guess I understand things differently.

It seems to me there are those folks here at CAF with SSA who are NOT always in a state of lust and who are attempting to be good Catholics, leading a chaste life, and admitting that they are sinners just like I admit I am a sinner.

Certainly the person with SSA can live a chaste life. If homosexual is equated with SSA then a homosexual person can also live a chaste life. Homosexual is not a noun it is an adjective. No matter what one’s sexual attractions are they can live a chaste life.

 

[agangbern]

So someone who has SSA, but who buries that attraction under prayer is still lustful because he or she has SSA? The SSA is still there, they are fighting it, but you will not welcome them into the Church until they fully “cease being a homosexual”?

As I already said, the person is welcome but not the sin. The attraction referred to here is not ordinary attraction. It is sexual attraction (lust) for the same sex. And that is sin according to the spirit of Mathew 5:28.

When a person has buried his lust for the same sex, then there is no more such lust to speak about. He has actually ceased being a homosexual.

It seems to me there are those folks here at CAF with SSA who are NOT always in a state of lust and who are attempting to be good Catholics, leading a chaste life, and admitting that they are sinners just like I admit I am a sinner.

When we say SSA it always connotes lust. The phrase, “folks here at CAF with SSA who are not always in a state of lust”, contradicts itself.

 

[goofyjim]

As I already said, the person is welcome but not the sin. The attraction referred to here is not ordinary attraction. It is sexual attraction (lust) for the same sex. And that is sin according to the spirit of Mathew 5:28.

When a person has buried his lust for the same sex, then there is no more such lust to speak about. He has actually ceased being a homosexual.

When we say SSA it always connotes lust. The phrase, “folks here at CAF with SSA who are not always in a state of lust”, contradicts itself.

Experiencing the attraction only is not the same as lusting.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t think many understand what it is like to experience same sex attraction. We are not in a constant state of sin. This is a ridiculous notion. Otherwise the opposite sex attracted person could be considered constantly lusting after women which would also be a sin. The Church does not teach that one must change the attraction. It teaches that one must not act on it through entertaining thoughts are actual physical actions.

 

[agangbern]

Certainly the person with SSA can live a chaste life. If homosexual is equated with SSA then a homosexual person can also live a chaste life. Homosexual is not a noun it is an adjective. No matter what one’s sexual attractions are they can live a chaste life.

I don’t agree with that. If we follow the spirit of Mathew 5:28, then it is impossible for a person with SSA to be still chaste. Sexual attraction itself is lust and by Mathew 5:28, therefore, it is unchaste.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t agree with that. If we follow the spirit of Mathew 5:28, then it is impossible for a person with SSA to be still chaste. Sexual attraction itself is lust and by Mathew 5:28, therefore, it is unchaste.

Then how can you possibly say the OSA is not also lusting?

 

[rlg94086]

As I already said, the person is welcome but not the sin. The attraction referred to here is not ordinary attraction. It is sexual attraction (lust) for the same sex. And that is sin according to the spirit of Mathew 5:28.

When a person has buried his lust for the same sex, then there is no more such lust to speak about. He has actually ceased being a homosexual.

When we say SSA it always connotes lust. The phrase, “folks here at CAF with SSA who are not always in a state of lust”, contradicts itself.

What you have written in your last couple of posts contradicts the Catechism:

Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

To expect them to cease being homosexual persons before becoming Catholics is ludicrous.

 

[agangbern]

I don’t think many understand what it is like to experience same sex attraction. We are not in a constant state of sin. This is a ridiculous notion. Otherwise the opposite sex attracted person could be considered constantly lusting after women which would also be a sin. The Church does not teach that one must change the attraction. It teaches that one must not act on it through entertaining thoughts are actual physical actions.

Yes, this may seem ridiculous. But that is the spirit of what Jesus said in Mathew 5:28. Yes, even sexual attraction by the opposite sex is lust. And yes, the church does not teach that one must change the attraction. But Christ teaches that lusting for another person is sin.

 

[melensdad]

Then how can you possibly say the OSA is not also lusting?

That has been one of my questions too. If I can look upon a woman and not lust then why can’t someone with SSA look upon a person of the same sex and not lust?

Clearly having a simple attraction is not the same as lusting. I can find Ann Margaret to be a beautiful woman but that does not mean that I am lusting after her. I can go see a movie with her as the star, then go home to my wife and have a clean conscience. Just because someone is attractive does not mean that we automatically are lusting in our hearts and harboring or dwelling on impure thoughts.

 

[agangbern]

What you have written in your last couple of posts contradicts the Catechism.

No, it did not. As a matter of fact the catechism supports it. Just read that catechism again and try to find the main significance.

 

[goofyjim]

Yes, this may seem ridiculous. But that is the spirit of what Jesus said in Mathew 5:28. Yes, even sexual attraction by the opposite sex is lust. And yes, the church does not teach that one must change the attraction. But Christ teaches that lusting for another person is sin.

And I repeat sexual attraction is not lust. Otherwise we are all lusting and in a state of sin.

 

[agangbern]

Then how can you possibly say the OSA is not also lusting?

By Mathew 5:28, it is lusting.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t think many understand what it is like to experience same sex attraction. We are not in a constant state of sin. This is a ridiculous notion. Otherwise the opposite sex attracted person could be considered constantly lusting after women which would also be a sin. The Church does not teach that one must change the attraction. It teaches that one must not act on it through entertaining thoughts are actual physical actions.

100% accurate. Otherwise, if I were to rid myself of all lustful thoughts, I would cease being a heterosexual person, if I used the same argument being posed. That’s not how it works.

We are all called to chastity through self-mastery. I believe that people with SSA have an additional burden because they don’t have the option of marrying those they are attracted to and having sexual relationships within such a marriage. Their chastity means celibacy.

 

[agangbern]

And I repeat sexual attraction is not lust. Otherwise we are all lusting and in a state of sin.

You said that because you think that all are experiencing sexual attraction: OSA or SSA. And that is a misconception similar to the misconception of Sigmund Freud.

 

[goofyjim]

By Mathew 5:28, it is lusting.

Heaven help us. We’re all in a constant state of mortal sin according to your interpretation.

 

[rlg94086]

No, it did not. As a matter of fact the catechism supports it. Just read that catechism again and try to find the main significance.

Okay, please explain how this…

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.

…doesn’t contradict this…

Homosexual persons are called to chastity

 

[goofyjim]

You said that because you think that all are experiencing sexual attraction: OSA or SSA. And that is a misconception similar to the misconception of Sigmund Freud.

How does one experience humanity without experiencing one or the other? Unless of course you are Jesus or Mary.

 

[agangbern]

Heaven help us. We’re all in a constant state of mortal sin according to your interpretation.

Yes, that’s right. Men (and women) must constantly be in prayer for God’s loving grace or else man would be hopeless.

 

[Publisher]

I have to call foul on this.

From what I have seen, it is usually the opposite of what you are suggesting and they can get quite nasty.

Agreed, most of the discussions that devolve into name calling are from those who “defend the truth”…instead of " erroneous defense of sin on the part of the sinner".

It seems “defending the truth” against the “sinner” has it’s own pitfalls.