Why we need to stand up against Anti-Gay sentiment

[JB_Brother_4446]

None of what you said is a bad thing. We should all pray, fast, and ask God for help. However, no where does God promise to remove any person’s cross this side of Heaven (His Will not ours). In fact most people have some type of cross or burden for the rest of their lives. What God does promise is that we will not be tempted beyond what we can bear and that the He will always offer an escape route. He does have the ability but often chooses not to. Why? I don’t know. I take a book of Paul’s thorn in our side that God can use someone’s cross to lead that person to Christ, to show our dependence on him, help humble us, and help us understand true compassion and mercy.

It is extremely frustrating the the attitude that is pervasive is that if a Christian has SSA that many view them as more broken and of a weak faith unless they somehow remove that SSA (some even go as far to see until that person removes that SSA they are not right with God. I have seen that attitude in many Christian circles including some Catholic ones sadly). People with OSA also have plenty of temptations to deal with that are contrary to God’s Will. Magically becoming straight wouldn’t mean an end of sexual temptations. All it would mean is that in some cases, the object of the desire is not intrinsically or objectively disordered.

I have never heard someone tell a person who is an alcoholic, gambler,etc, that basically if they prayed and fasted enough they would be able to drink and not be tempted to drink to a stupor. What they are told that resisting the temptation is good and sin only enters when one willfully engages that temptation. Yet, often a gay/SSA person is basically told or heavily implied they are sinning for having these attractions (and it is often rare to hear that corrected and the true Church position mentioned in public press). It is an incredible frustrating double standard.

Basically it becomes the mentality that a SSA person is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Add on top of this the loneliness that comes (since our society including Christian culture basically idolatrizes marriage, romance, and the nuclear family) and the SSA Christian feels like there is very little support (Church was meant to be a community a family of fellow believers bounded in Christ but ask any single person and they will describe how they often feel like they are looking in from the outside). Overtime the small victories over temptation begin to feel hollow and the struggles begin to feel unbearable. There has been support failure for SSA Christians trying to live on the right path which is why so many lose faith or even worse lose all hope and self harm.

By God’s grace I have found support in my cross, but other Christians seem to do their best to keep me discouraged and add extra weight to my cross… So, please take extra time to explain what you mean, add extra compassion and charity because SSA Christians have felt burned by a lot of other Christians. So many want to find God but because of pain and past hurt keep a safe distance from God. Just my two cents and minor rant.

A lot of Christians emphasize love and mercy. That is good. However, Christians also must say the truth. I have seen a lot of “it’s okay” answers. That will do nothing to help the situation at all. The truth is that God created attraction for man and woman. Anything else is not of God. One man and one woman, NOT a man and a man. SSA is NOT God’s doing. Those who experience it should pray and fast and do anything to curb it. And as to Paul experiencing the thorn in the side, Paul never said it was SSA. God

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Lots of gay people have done this and the same-sex attraction doesn’t go away. Some have felt that the only solution left is to commit suicide.

So do you propose that we basically say that attraction is okay and that should do NOTHING?

 

[StudentMI]

So do you propose that we basically say that attraction is okay and that should do NOTHING?

It’s not that it’s okay or not okay. It’s neutral.

Homosexuality would, in this sense, escape moral evaluation. It could not be considered a fault or a sin that prevents reception of the sacraments. Mechanisms and tendencies in themselves are neither moral nor immoral: they exist.

ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo14.htm

 

[Rau]

…My problem is the Magisterium claiming a group of people experience exclusive SSA with no substantive reason and this not being in harmony with the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Actually, the CCC accepts (rather than claims, noting it has no stake in the matter one way or the other) that there are people who do experience an exclusive SSA. It’s as simple as that…

Now, if you believe it is possible to prove that something NOT mentioned in the deposit of faith (like exclusive SSA, kleptomania, microwave ovens to cook food) stands in contradiction with the deposit of faith, please tell us how. Otherwise, we can agree to disagree about it. I have no problem with this.

The deposit of faith is not an encyclopedia of everything, nor even of all the matters that may afflict the human condition. It is not meaningful to ask that every such matter should be “in harmony with the deposit of faith”.

 

[Rau]

… The truth is that God created attraction for man and woman. Anything else is not of God. One man and one woman, NOT a man and a man. SSA is NOT God’s doing. Those who experience it should pray and fast and do anything to curb it. And as to Paul experiencing the thorn in the side, Paul never said it was SSA.

God created man with 2 eyes to see, ears to hear, sexual organs to reproduce, a mind to think and reason, and so on. We accept that things go wrong sometimes. Those who experience SSA should strive to live chastely.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

It’s not that it’s okay or not okay. It’s neutral.

Eh. Paul said otherwise.

 

[Rau]

For the avoidance of doubt…

It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church that persons of homosexual inclination choose to experience that inclination. Some certainly choose to follow it, or indulge it - and that is not disputed.

That the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered” is not to condemn it any more than we condemn other forms of concupiscence. It is simply to describe it - disordered by virtue of the object (same sex sexual acts) to which it is directed.

The tendency towards sin in general (concupiscence) which we all share is not sinful itself but only a part of our fallen human nature. Concupiscence, one of the “temporal consequences of original sin,” (CCC1264), moves “…the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason.” (CCC2515). Concupiscence moves us toward what we view as pleasing and away from what we view as painful, without regard for reason.

Concupiscence, which is not itself a sin, is the tendency to go to what ever the imagination sees as desirable without regard to reason. For some persons (commonly called homosexual persons, or bisexual persons), the imagination sees as desirable an objectively disordered, intrinsic moral evil. Having only a tendency, or inclination toward this particular sin is not a sin. The object of the tendency’s desire, however, is a sin.

How did the “imagination” of the homosexual become so disordered? This is not a really a theological question and no-one, or no profession, in the secular world professes to know the answer definitively.

Temptation is an incitement to sin and can arises from various sources - including concupiscence.

It is correct to observe that SSA is not good, not neutral and not benign:

*“In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” *
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…ersons_en.html

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

God created man with 2 eyes to see, ears to hear, sexual organs to reproduce, a mind to think and reason, and so on. We accept that things go wrong sometimes. Those who experience SSA should strive to live chastely.

Is SSA of God?

 

[Thorolfr]

Is SSA of God?

Is being left handed of God? It used to be thought that being left handed was a bad thing. After all, the word “sinister” comes from the Latin “sinister” or “left.” One of the definitions of “sinister” in Merriam-Webster is, “of ill omen by reason of being on the left.” And, as every Christian who has memorized the Apostles’ Creed knows, Christ will ascend into heaven where he will be " seated at the right hand of the Father", not the left hand of the Father.

 

[Rau]

Is SSA of God?

Are any human afflictions, any elements of our fallen human nature - “of God”?

 

[at9009]

A lot of Christians emphasize love and mercy.

There seems to be a pretty big shortage in a lot of cases sadly.

I have seen a lot of “it’s okay” answers. That will do nothing to help the situation at all. The truth is that God created attraction for man and woman. Anything else is not of God. One man and one woman, NOT a man and a man. SSA is NOT God’s doing. Those who experience it should pray and fast and do anything to curb it. And as to Paul experiencing the thorn in the side, Paul never said it was SSA. God

Few things. To act like attraction between others of the same sex between is bad is a false statement. We are meant to be attracted to others of the same sex (that’s partly how friendships form). However, same sex **sexual **attraction is when stuff falls off of the original design and is the problem. That is what makes it complicated for people with same sex sexual attraction. The desire for friendship with others of the same sex is fine. The difficult part if when sexual attraction comes into play and interferes with a natural and good friendship.

No where did I say same sex sexual attraction is of God. Desires that are contrary to God’s Will are part of one’s concupiscence which is a manifestation of original sin and our own brokedness.

I wasn’t intending to imply that Paul’s thorn was SSA. What I meant to imply is that God can take a person’s cross (whether that be SSA, a predilection to gossip, to lying, to anger, whatever) and use it to point the person to God. By resisting our personal crosses (whatever they may be) I believe God gives us grace and blessings. A person with SSA who is trying to follow God can see his or her dependence on Christ, be more aware of the magnitude of God’s mercy and grace. So, in essence, God can make something good of a bad situation. That was the point I was trying to make.

Paul saw his thorn as a blessing in disguise because in his weakness he saw his dependence on God. I see my cross in a similar light and believe we can view all our crosses like that (whether the cross is a lifelong battle or something more transient).

 

[kdbueno]

Theology approves the missionary identity of the spirit of Truth.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

Is being left handed of God? It used to be thought that being left handed was a bad thing. After all, the word “sinister” comes from the Latin “sinister” or “left.” One of the definitions of “sinister” in Merriam-Webster is, “of ill omen by reason of being on the left.” And, as every Christian who has memorized the Apostles’ Creed knows, Christ will ascend into heaven where he will be " seated at the right hand of the Father", not the left hand of the Father.

Answer my question.

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

There seems to be a pretty big shortage in a lot of cases sadly.

Few things. To act like attraction between others of the same sex between is bad is a false statement. We are meant to be attracted to others of the same sex (that’s partly how friendships form). However, same sex **sexual **attraction is when stuff falls off of the original design and is the problem. That is what makes it complicated for people with same sex sexual attraction. The desire for friendship with others of the same sex is fine. The difficult part if when sexual attraction comes into play and interferes with a natural and good friendship.

No where did I say same sex sexual attraction is of God. Desires that are contrary to God’s Will are part of one’s concupiscence which is a manifestation of original sin and our own brokedness.

I wasn’t intending to imply that Paul’s thorn was SSA. What I meant to imply is that God can take a person’s cross (whether that be SSA, a predilection to gossip, to lying, to anger, whatever) and use it to point the person to God. By resisting our personal crosses (whatever they may be) I believe God gives us grace and blessings. A person with SSA who is trying to follow God can see his or her dependence on Christ, be more aware of the magnitude of God’s mercy and grace. So, in essence, God can make something good of a bad situation. That was the point I was trying to make.

Paul saw his thorn as a blessing in disguise because in his weakness he saw his dependence on God. I see my cross in a similar light and believe we can view all our crosses like that (whether the cross is a lifelong battle or something more transient).

So anything that is not sexualized is good? Cause that what it sounds like you are saying.

 

[at9009]

So anything that is not sexualized is good? Cause that what it sounds like you are saying.

For a Christian who is sexually attracted to others of the same sex, any sexual desire that comes about would not be good and represent a problem. It is a problem because there is no where for that sexual desire to go and be moral and within accordance of our Catholic faith. Attraction and friendship however are a good and there is no problems with that. In essence, I guess, the person needs to resist and ask for help in suppressing the sexual desires. In many cases, they do not interfere with a friendship and even overtime diminish. If however, the sexual desires and temptations represent too much of a burden, then maybe it may come to a point where the friendship may have to be ended.

In the case with a person attracted to someone of the other sex, the sexual desire does have an ending that is within accordance with our faith: ie. marriage between a man and a woman that is open to life (as long as neither spouse is previously divorced). However, if a married man or woman feels sexual attraction to someone other than their spouse, the same problems arise. The sexual desire cannot be morally permissable. However, attraction to someone of the other sex is not the issue.

The issue, I guess, is whenever we develop desires (whatever they are) that are contrary to God’s Will and design. In the case of sexual attraction, any sexual attraction that does not end or aims at a heterosexual marriage (that is in accordance with Catholic Morality and teaching) that is open to life is problematic. Does that make sense? At least that’s my perspective I guess.

I don’t see two friends who are attracted to each other: as in enjoy spending time with each other, have developed genuine phila type love could be a problem, and if God is kept in the relationship as a problem. Obviously any relationship or friendship can become a problem if it becomes more important than our faith etc.

 

[Thorolfr]

Answer my question.

I think that everything that happens is part of God’s plan including some people having SSA.

 

[kdbueno]

This issue is up for ages. However, the Roman Catholic stand-point will always be: mercy first.

 

[Rau]

I think that everything that happens is part of God’s plan including some people having SSA.

Come on Thor. God’s plan is that we choose well. We don’t follow the script. Don’t blame that on God.

 

[Thorolfr]

Come on Thor. God’s plan is that we choose well. We don’t follow the script. Don’t blame that on God.

If I were blaming God, I would have to think that there is something bad about having SSA. According to Merriam-Webster, to “blame” means “to say or think that a person or thing is responsible for something bad that has happened”. But I personally don’t think that there is anything “bad” about SSA, so I would have no reason to “blame that on God.”

 

[Rau]

If I were blaming God, I would have to think that there is something bad about having SSA. According to Merriam-Webster, to “blame” means “to say or think that a person or thing is responsible for something bad that has happened”. But I personally don’t think that there is anything “bad” about SSA, so I would have no reason to “blame that on God.”

Who’s talking about SSA? I referred to our choices. SSA is not a choice, right? I referred to the choices we make - to live chastely, or not (for example).

But as far as SSA is concerned, God no more ordains that a person experience it than he ordains a child be born blind, or a person suffer depression. These things happen. That’s all.