your opinions on gays

[agangbern]

Is attraction also a desire? Where do you draw the line as to what is “attraction”? is it to an individual?

Attraction is broader in meaning than desire. Magnets attract one another, but there is never a desire in them to speak of. So, attraction could be attributed even to non-living things. But when we speak of desire, it is limited to living things more particularly to rational beings. Human beings desire for something which their mature intellect could understand and therefore could control.

 

[agangbern]

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.

The Catechism is clear on what it defines as homosexuality. And it does not label it as a moral, mental, or spiritual disorder of the person himself. Same sex inclinations, the draw of one man for another, is objectively disordered.

Father John Harvey defines objective disorder as:
“nothing to do with moral worth or the free will of the person. It is the tendency to homosexual desires and acts, since such desires or acts are instrinsically immoral.”

Yes, the catechism no doubt is clear what it refers to as homosexuality. But as regards homosexual tendencies/inclination, it does not clearly define what they are. You needed to consult a Father John Harvey to speak out his opinion of what they mean, which as it is, is also simply an opinion.
Objective disorder, as Father Harvey pointed out, has nothing to do with the free will of the person. Hence it is called a tendency. The “tendency to desire” is obviously different from “desiring”. The desire of a man is within his power to control. He can decide not to desire for something and he can do it because he is a rational being.

 

[LittleDeb]

The words “sexual pleasure desired by a homosexual” is not an insertion to catechism 2351. It is a statement of a fact about homosexuals. As explained somewhere here by one poster, same sex attraction could be an attraction for the same sex in the way he/she dresses; or it could be to idolize him/her; etc… That kind of attraction does not make one a homosexual.
But when the attraction is a desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex, then that makes him/her a homosexual. So, that is it.
The question then should be asked: Is that sexual pleasure desired by the homosexual related to procreative and unitive purpose? The answer would be a big NO! It is not related to procreative purpose!
And what does catechism 2351 say about that desire for such kind of sexual pleasure? The catechism says: It is morally disordered.
This is not to say that heterosexuals could not commit a desire for the same kind of sexual pleasure. It just happen that the topic is about “gays” so the focus is upon them.

I give up. You want to force your opinion contrary to Church teaching. In this response you have reiterated exactly what I said previously. You are reading into the Catechism something which is not there. Sexual pleasure is ONLY sexual pleasure with an ACT of sex!! Desire for sexual pleasure is simply that, desire.

I can, as I type, desire sex with my husband. I am not experiencing sexual pleasure in that desire. (Gosh, I certainly hope not! ) My desire for sex with my husband is, in my case, an ordered desire since it is A. heterosexual, B. for my husband not someone else, and C. ordered toward procreation and unity (not contraceptive.)

If a, b, or c were the opposite of what I have listed they would be disordered desires, but not sinful. Now if I were to ACT on any of those disordered desires, I would be sinning. I don’t know how many different ways to explain this to you. It is not a sin to desire the same sex in a sexual way. It is a sin to entertain that desire into some form of ACT, (i.e. a fantasy, or worse, engaging in contact.)

It really doesn’t sound like you want to understand Church teaching. It sounds like you want to say the Church is wrong in her teaching. If you think the Church is wrong in Her teaching then we will have to disagree. I am a die-hard Catholic. I believe the Church is free from error in faith and morals.

If you suffer from scrupulosity then I am sorry for your burden. We are NOT sinning any and every time a bad thought pops in our heads. If that were the case, none of us could ever leave the confessional! A thought or act must be chosen to be a sin.

 

[LuxDei]

I give up. You want to force your opinion contrary to Church teaching. In this response you have reiterated exactly what I said previously. You are reading into the Catechism something which is not there. Sexual pleasure is ONLY sexual pleasure with an ACT of sex!! Desire for sexual pleasure is simply that, desire.

I can, as I type, desire sex with my husband. I am not experiencing sexual pleasure in that desire. (Gosh, I certainly hope not! ) My desire for sex with my husband is, in my case, an ordered desire since it is A. heterosexual, B. for my husband not someone else, and C. ordered toward procreation and unity (not contraceptive.)

If a, b, or c were the opposite of what I have listed they would be disordered desires, but not sinful. Now if I were to ACT on any of those disordered desires, I would be sinning. I don’t know how many different ways to explain this to you. It is not a sin to desire the same sex in a sexual way. It is a sin to entertain that desire into some form of ACT, (i.e. a fantasy, or worse, engaging in contact.)

It really doesn’t sound like you want to understand Church teaching. It sounds like you want to say the Church is wrong in her teaching. If you think the Church is wrong in Her teaching then we will have to disagree. I am a die-hard Catholic. I believe the Church is free from error in faith and morals.

If you suffer from scrupulosity then I am sorry for your burden. We are NOT sinning any and every time a bad thought pops in our heads. If that were the case, none of us could ever leave the confessional! A thought or act must be chosen to be a sin.

Rock on, Little Deb…That was an awesome post.

My two cents: I have very close friends who are gay, and although I am inclined to think that at least a hefty part of their SSA is just how they’re wired, I completely agree with the Church on this issue. No matter what your desires are, God set humans apart by giving them reason, and we have a responsibility to determine whether a given desire is moral or not before acting on it. AND the only place a sexual desire could be morally acted upon would be within the context of a valid marriage between a man and woman who were not artificially contracepting. End of story.

 

[agangbern]

I give up. You want to force your opinion contrary to Church teaching. In this response you have reiterated exactly what I said previously. You are reading into the Catechism something which is not there. Sexual pleasure is ONLY sexual pleasure with an ACT of sex!! Desire for sexual pleasure is simply that, desire.

Your second sentence above could likewise be said to you. If you believe you are a die-hard Catholic, rest assured you are not alone as such.
Catechism 2351, as I have been repeating here, speaks of two dimensions of lust, namely: a) disordered desire for sexual pleasure, or b) inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure.
The first dimension does not connote an “act of sex”, while the second dimension connotes an “act of sex”. The catechism is clear, but it seems it is you who does not want to accept the true teaching of the Church as regard this matter.

I can, as I type, desire sex with my husband. I am not experiencing sexual pleasure in that desire. (Gosh, I certainly hope not! ) My desire for sex with my husband is, in my case, an ordered desire since it is A. heterosexual, B. for my husband not someone else, and C. ordered toward procreation and unity (not contraceptive.)

Yes, I definitely agree with you, because experiencing sexual pleasure is different and distinct from desiring sexual pleasure.
And your desire for sexual pleasure with your husband is not morally disordered because it is within the bounds of Church teaching. But that sexual pleasure which is isolated from procreative purpose is, according to the second sentence of catechism 2351, morally disordered. And that is the kind of sexual pleasure that is desired by the homosexual. And according to the first sentence of catechism 2351, it is a disordered desire. The catechism is very specific in its definition of lust.

 

[LittleDeb]

Yes, I definitely agree with you, because experiencing sexual pleasure is different and distinct from desiring sexual pleasure.
And your desire for sexual pleasure with your husband is not morally disordered because it is within the bounds of Church teaching. But that sexual pleasure which is isolated from procreative purpose is, according to the second sentence of catechism 2351, morally disordered. And that is the kind of sexual pleasure that is desired by the homosexual. And according to the first sentence of catechism 2351, it is a disordered desire. The catechism is very specific in its definition of lust.

We have now come full circle back to where I entered this discussion. Lust is a FORM of disordered desire, just as gluttony is a FORM of disordered desire. What you are doing here is correlating things that do not correlate. By saying that one disordered desire is lust since lust is a disordered desire is akin to saying that the desire to eat rocks is lust since it is also a disordered desire. This is where I came into this discussion.

I will agree with you that all homosexual acts (A. in my example) are forms of lust. Also all acts of fornication and adultery (B. in my example) and all acts of contraception (C. in my example) are all forms of lust.

Sorry, but from a purely biological standpoint the desire for sexual pleasure with a member of the same sex is a similar disorder to the desire to eat rocks. Not sinful, but not reasonable either. As so many members of the gay community have themselves pointed, “who would choose to be that way?”

 

[agangbern]

Sorry, but from a purely biological standpoint the desire for sexual pleasure with a member of the same sex is a similar disorder to the desire to eat rocks. Not sinful, but not reasonable either. As so many members of the gay community have themselves pointed, “who would choose to be that way?”

From a purely biological point of view, yes maybe that view is ok. But, how about from Church view? We have to go back to Catechism 2351 in order to absorb its frankness. A desire to eat rocks is certainly different from the desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex. The former has already a mark of insanity, and insane persons no longer have control of their will, while the latter still has power of will. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that they are the same.
We do not go to circles if we just accept catechism 2351 as is. The sentence, “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when it is sought for itself isolated from procreative and unitive purpose.”, is second sentence in catechism 2351. It simply explains what kind of sexual pleasure is talked about in the the first sentence, specially the first dimension of lust.
The sexual pleasure that is desired by the homosexual is such sexual pleasure because it is patently isolated from procreative purpose. I would not be tired of repeating this teaching of the church if only to bring forth the heart of the message.

 

[agangbern]

We have now come full circle back to where I entered this discussion. Lust is a FORM of disordered desire, just as gluttony is a FORM of disordered desire. What you are doing here is correlating things that do not correlate. By saying that one disordered desire is lust since lust is a disordered desire …

Unfortunately it is you who are correlating things that do not correlate. What I said is simply a quotation from catechism 2351, “disordered desire for sexual pleasure.” Gluttony maybe disordered desire, yes, but not a desire for sexual pleasure. You tend to mix into one class things that are different from each other.

 

[LittleDeb]

From a purely biological point of view, yes maybe that view is ok. But, how about from Church view? We have to go back to Catechism 2351 in order to absorb its frankness. A desire to eat rocks is certainly different from the desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex. The former has already a mark of insanity, and insane persons no longer have control of their will, while the latter still has power of will. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that they are the same.
We do not go to circles if we just accept catechism 2351 as is. The sentence, “Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when it is sought for itself isolated from procreative and unitive purpose.”, is second sentence in catechism 2351. It simply explains what kind of sexual pleasure is talked about in the the first sentence, specially the first dimension of lust.
The sexual pleasure that is desired by the homosexual is such sexual pleasure because it is patently isolated from procreative purpose. I would not be tired of repeating this teaching of the church if only to bring forth the heart of the message.

Well, we are done then. By your definition I was in a state of sin recently (and still am by your standard.) After the recent birth of our daughter my body was giving very mixed signals for charting for NFP. I had a fleeting thought that it would be easier to contracept during the confusing time. I desired for a moment, sex that was not procreative.

I didn’t engage the desire and instead turned towards God in the Eucharist. I received and have continued to receive Communion. I did not confess the desire for contraception because I did nothing to entertain the thought and certainly did not act on it. I didn’t confess it because it wasn’t a sin, neither venial nor mortal.

By your definition I lusted by simply having a desire. By Church teaching I was tempted and I overcame temptation. I did not sin.

I am sorry that you continue to malign the moral character of some wonderful people who suffer SSA. There is one person on this thread who has SSA and has been a great blessing to my spirituality from his example of living with SSA. I’ll leave it to JB if he wants to expound on it.

How are we to bring people to the beauty of Church teaching if it is misrepresented by some of her members? To tell a person with SSA that they are morally corrupt for simply having a desire beyond his or her will, is just plain cruel. It is also completely false.

I am going to take a break now and continue a prayer. May God bless you and help soften your heart to the plight of your fellow man.

 

[Pug]

Agangbern,

When you use the word “desire”, does this word for you always include consent? That is, when you say a man desires sex with someone, you mean that they have already done or are doing a voluntary human action?

 

[blessedtoo]

Agangbern,

When you use the word “desire”, does this word for you always include consent? That is, when you say a man desires sex with someone, you mean that they have already done or are doing a voluntary human action?

Yes, I would like like to know your answer to this question. I would also like you to elaborate on this:

The “tendency to desire” is obviously different from “desiring”. The desire of a man is within his power to control. He can decide not to desire for something and he can do it because he is a rational being.

Humans are, unfortunately, subjected to concupiscence as a result of Original Sin. While we can certainly refrain from acting on desire, and can obviously pray for the release from desire, actually achieving completely freedom from concupiscence may not be possible until we have gone home to our Father in heaven. Based on the statement you made above, that would doom us all. Am I interpreting correctly?

 

[agangbern]

Agangbern,

When you use the word “desire”, does this word for you always include consent? That is, when you say a man desires sex with someone, you mean that they have already done or are doing a voluntary human action?

To desire is already an act, though it starts internally, that is, within one’s heart. It starts as an internal act which is within the control of a rational being. He can decide to desire or not to desire.
When he desires for a sexual pleasure which is morally disordered for being isolated from procreative purpose, that internal act of desiring is basically not at first visible by outward acts. Nevertheless, the internal act already exists within the heart. That particular desire is what the catechism calls “disordered desire for sexual pleasure” because, as explained in the second sentence of catechism 2351, that sexual pleasure is morally disordered.
While yet an internal act, that is, while not yet seen by outward acts, people around the person has no way to tell what is the content of his heart. People around him has no right to judge him. Only the person himself is accountable to God for his disordered desire for sexual pleasure that is not seen by outward acts.

 

[Pug]

To desire is already an act, though it starts internally, that is, within one’s heart. It starts as an internal act which is within the control of a rational being. He can decide to desire or not to desire.

If I understand you, you are talking about voluntary desire only, since you say he can decide to desire or not. This means to me that the man has been confronted with a moment of choice, and you are calling it “desire” if at that moment of choice he willingly chose to engage in desiring. In the seconds prior to that, you would not be calling it desire, then? Also, you mention that this is internal, in the “heart”. I agree about the heart, that men can’t search the hearts of others.

I’ve recently read how the CCC uses “desire” in the section it has on the passions. When I read that, it seems to me that the word “desire” can be used of movements that happen without or prior to the will getting on the bandwagon. As I am trying to understand what you wish to say, I am partly trying to understand relative to that section.

So you have some idea what I am wondering about, here is a cut that says that desire is a passion, just as is fear, for example. It sort of ends up sounding like a feeling or emotion. Also, I include another cut that indicates why I think there may be a difference between desire that one does not resist and desire that one does resist with the will.

1772 The principal passions are love and hatred, desire and fear, joy, sadness, and anger.

1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.” It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.

 

[agangbern]

If I understand you, you are talking about voluntary desire only, since you say he can decide to desire or not. This means to me that the man has been confronted with a moment of choice, and you are calling it “desire” if at that moment of choice he willingly chose to engage in desiring. In the seconds prior to that, you would not be calling it desire, then? Also, you mention that this is internal, in the “heart”. I agree about the heart, that men can’t search the hearts of others.

I was talking of desire as a verb, “to desire”, and that was what I discussed. Now, your question above concerns on desire as a noun. Desire as a noun is a passion, yes. And that is what is talked about in the CCC you cited:
1772 The principal passions are love and hatred, desire and fear, joy, sadness, and anger.
1767 In themselves passions are neither good nor evil. They are morally qualified only to the extent that they effectively engage reason and will. Passions are said to be voluntary, “either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.” It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason.

The above citations are clear in themselves: “Passions are said to be voluntary, either because they are commanded by the will or because the will does not place obstacles in their way.” It belongs to the perfection of the moral or human good that the passions be governed by reason."

Also, I include another cut that indicates why I think there may be a difference between desire that one does not resist and desire that one does resist with the will.

Yes, I agree with you that there is a desire that one does not need to resist. Example is the desire to be united with God. Man does not need to resist that desire whenever it comes along.
However, the “disordered desire for sexual pleasure” spoken of in CCC2351 is one of those which man can will to avoid. CCC2351 is talking about lust, and lust is intrinsically morally disordered, hence man should decide not to desire it.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Here’s how my Priest explained it to me-perhaps it will help.

Desire alone is not sin, UNLESS that desire is allowed to move into the realm of fantasy-which is a choice. For example, a married man sees a lovely woman (not his wife), when he sees her, he feels a flash of desire. At this point-he has a choice-to banish the desire or to allow it to continue as fantasy. Once he chooses to entertain that fantasy, he has moved into sin. Same thing for someone who has a desire for the person of the same sex.

According to my Priest, he gives the same advice regarding this issue to heterosexuals-at the instant the desire is recognized-say a prayer and do not entertain it as fantasy and you will not have sinned.

I’ve spent a lot of time over the years discussing this issue with Priests and confessors-it’s my life and my salvation so it’s far more than an intellecutal exercise. Consistently, for over 20 years, in both modern and traditional Latin parishes, I have heard the same teaching, sexual desire is not a sin until the individual, whether gay or straight, engages that desire with full consent of the will.

 

[drthomas_21]

Hola,

God loves us all equally. If you think about it, the only thing that we can give God, that he does not already have is our obedience to his will.

Everyone has feeling and desired; which affects every decision we make. There are married people who still find themselves attractive to other people – that is how they are wired; but in the end, we all have a choice to make. We can either choose to follow God’s will or not. It is our choice to make. If your love for God is greater than your personal desired, then you actions will demonstrate that love. If your love for your personal desires is greater, again your action will also demonstrate that.

The choice is yours…

 

[agangbern]

Hola,

God loves us all equally. If you think about it, the only thing that we can give God, that he does not already have is our obedience to his will.

Everyone has feeling and desired; which affects every decision we make. There are married people who still find themselves attractive to other people – that is how they are wired; but in the end, we all have a choice to make. We can either choose to follow God’s will or not. It is our choice to make. If your love for God is greater than your personal desired, then you actions will demonstrate that love. If your love for your personal desires is greater, again your action will also demonstrate that.

The choice is yours…

I agree with the above statements of drthomas!

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I agree with the above statements of drthomas!

Okay, that’s more or less what we’ve been saying the entire time… Whatever…

 

[guanophore]

personally, I don’t think that any man or woman is born with an attraction to the same sex. But I don’t beleive in calling them names like fag or fairy. Leave them alone. How is calling them names because you are against their orienation going to bring them to God. We should love them like everyonelse. They are children of God like us . I think that the church tries to push them away too much.

The church does not support any name calling or pejorative treatment of any kind. The Church teaches that Christ died for our sins, whatever they are. The church demands repentance from sin. If that pushes people away, it is because they love sin too much.

 

[agangbern]

The church does not support any name calling or pejorative treatment of any kind. The Church teaches that Christ died for our sins, whatever they are. The church demands repentance from sin. If that pushes people away, it is because they love sin too much.

This is true!