your opinions on gays

[Fitswimmer]

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.

Of course, but the issue on this whole thread has been what is really a sin and what isn’t. A mortal sin is a decision. You have to know what you are doing is wrong and against the will of God and choose to engage in that behavior anyway. Attraction to another that is not one’s spouse is not a sin, unless there is a concious effort to engage in action or even fantasy regarding that attraction. If the attraction is merely a distraction, and the person avoids engaging it through prayer, then they have not committed a sin. There should be, and I would think in the case of a faithful Catholic, a desire that the attraction to that “other” never occur again, but until God grants that blessing, the person can only utilize the method of prayer to avoid the sin.

 

[agangbern]

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.

What do you mean by, “allowed to move into the realm of fantasy”?
And why not use the homosexual himself as the example?

When a person desires for sexual pleasure with the same sex, he knows that that is a desire for a sexual pleasure which, according to CCC2351, is morally disordered, hence the proper thing for him to do is to “banish” that desire immediately. That “desiring” took place within his heart, therefore others would not know that it ever took place.
But when the person walks around telling others that his desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex is not a sin, that certainly is another story. It is already allowing his desire “to move into the realm of fantasy.”

 

[Fitswimmer]

What do you mean by, “allowed to move into the realm of fantasy”?
And why not use the homosexual himself as the example?

When a person desires for sexual pleasure with the same sex, he knows that that is a desire for a sexual pleasure which, according to CCC2351, is morally disordered, hence the proper thing for him to do is to “banish” that desire immediately. That “desiring” took place within his heart, therefore others would not know that it ever took place.
But when the person walks around telling others that his desire for sexual pleasure with the same sex is not a sin, that certainly is another story. It is already allowing his desire “to move into the realm of fantasy.”

We’re parsing words, but I think essentially we are saying the same thing. If I see someone of my gender and a desirous thought pops into my head-and I immediately say a Hail Mary to banish that thought-according to my Confessor I have not sinned. If I don’t make an effort to banish the thought, and even engage it and take pleasure in it-then I have crossed the line into sin.

Do I pray that the thought never comes? Of course, just like I pray that I don’t have the inclination to commit any of the other sins that I’m prone to. However, God has not seen fit to grant me that blessing as yet, so all I can do is remain watchful over where my mind goes so I do not engage in sin.

 

[agangbern]

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.

“a fleeting thought” is certainly not the same as “desired for a moment”. The former is a function of the mind, while the latter is a function of the heart. As I see it, you were not desiring. You were simply pondering about choosing a particular course of action.

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.

You know very well that I never maligned anyone here.You can never quote me here maligning someone.

How are we to bring people to the beauty of Church teaching if it is misrepresented by some of her members?

No one could be brought to the beauty of Church teaching except the Heavenly Father brings him to it. Not you or I could do that.

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 don’t know who told somebody here that he is morally corrupt. It seems your imagination has gone a distance. CCC2351 is very frank and clear.

 

[donusII]

No. I am referring to the sexual acts typically done by two homosexuals. I don’t know how else to describe them without getting graphic, and I really don’t want to go there.

what about when those sexual acts typically done by two homosexuals are instead done by two heterosexuals within the context of matrimonial sex? so, non-procreative but unitive sex? sin?

 

[LittleDeb]

I don’t know who told somebody here that he is morally corrupt. It seems your imagination has gone a distance. CCC2351 is very frank and clear.

You told goofyjim he was morally disordered for having SSA. He responded he wasn’t and you reiterated that he was. That was what led to people trying to correct you in the first place.

If you were not saying that he was morally disordered for simply identifying as a homosexual, then I am sorry for the misunderstanding. It is obvious that we are not able to communicate clearly so I will refrain from responding to you again.

 

[agangbern]

We’re parsing words, but I think essentially we are saying the same thing. If I see someone of my gender and a desirous thought pops into my head-and I immediately say a Hail Mary to banish that thought-according to my Confessor I have not sinned. If I don’t make an effort to banish the thought, and even engage it and take pleasure in it-then I have crossed the line into sin.

Do I pray that the thought never comes? Of course, just like I pray that I don’t have the inclination to commit any of the other sins that I’m prone to. However, God has not seen fit to grant me that blessing as yet, so all I can do is remain watchful over where my mind goes so I do not engage in sin.

If you mean that you also believe that the desire for sexual pleasure for the same sex is morally disordered, then I would say, “That’s great of you, Fitswimmer! Thanks be God.”

They say, “Know your enemies.” Indeed, the struggle against sin starts in recognizing what act (internal or external) is considered sin.

Good Luck and God Bless!

 

[agangbern]

You told goofyjim he was morally disordered for having SSA. He responded he wasn’t and you reiterated that he was. That was what led to people trying to correct you in the first place.

What? I told gooyfyjim that he was morally disordered? You seem joking, litleDeb! You should have cited instead the post where the alleged malignment was done.

No one is trying to correct anybody here. We are simply sharing views.

 

[rlg94086]

what about when those sexual acts typically done by two homosexuals are instead done by two heterosexuals within the context of matrimonial sex? so, non-procreative but unitive sex? sin?

Hi donusII (and welcome to CAF),

That question was handled previous to the particular post…in fact it was a post of clarification after this post was questioned:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2888802&postcount=557

I really don’t want to get into particulars RomanCrusader because this is a family show, ***but the acts that homosexuals perform are considered acceptable if a married man and woman perform them with each other, as long as they are only part of (i.e. leading up to) the unitive and procreative act.

---

Therefore, I don’t think that homosexual sex acts themselves can be considered “mutilating ones body” or a “demonic-like abuse of the human body.”

 

[donusII]

Thanks Robert. i’ll check it out.

 

[agangbern]

what about when those sexual acts typically done by two homosexuals are instead done by two heterosexuals within the context of matrimonial sex? so, non-procreative but unitive sex? sin?

The answer could be found here in the CCC:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

 

[donusII]

The answer could be found here in the CCC:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

With respect, I find Robert’s answer more helpful. The starting point for my question was that appropriate sex is that which occurs in the marital context and which fulfills both a unitive and procreative function. Since many heterosexuals engage in sexual behavior within the marital context which is identical or very similar to the sex acts commonly engaged in by homosexual persons, it didn’t seem to me that things are as straightforward as your response might suggest. Robert addressed this question in a way that acknowledged and attempted to answer the precise question I was highlighting, rather than simply reciting the doctrine that gave rise to the question in the first place.

 

[LittleDeb]

What? I told gooyfyjim that he was morally disordered? You seem joking, litleDeb! You should have cited instead the post where the alleged malignment was done.

It isn’t just in the context of one post. It begins here in post 234.

“Disordered desire for sexual pleasure is lust. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from procreative and unitive purpose.” (Catechism 2351)

Homosexual is characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire towards another of the same sex. Being of same sex, we can therefore say that their sexual desire is for itself, isolated from any procreative and unitive purpose, a disordered desire.

** Therefore, a homosexual is characterized by lust.

** And lust, according to the spirit of Mathew 5:28 is sin.

** Therefore, homosexuality is a sin!**

[bolded by me]Then you try to clarify in 249, but cannot so posts 254, 259, and 260 reemphasize that you are applying the Catechism 2351 “morally disordered” to the desire of SSA being sinful. Goofyjim bowed out because of this conversation with you.

I don’t know why I bothered to come back in, but I wanted to note the posts because I should have done so before but I was in a hurry. Sorry about that.

As I said before, if you are not saying that having SSA is a sin and I am just misunderstanding you then I apologize. From this post, 234, it certainly reads as if you are saying it is sinful to identify as a homosexual, even a chaste one.

 

[donusII]

The answer could be found here in the CCC:

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

angangbern, I’m also curious whether you can clarify for me whether masturbation is morally disordered, and whether that is a form of homosexual sex? and whether masturbation is a mortal sin? and whether it is equally sinful as two people of the same sex engaging in sex acts with each other? I would find it most helpful if you’d share your interpretation with me, rather than simply citing your authority again. I’m interested to understand your analysis. thanks for any insight you are able to provide.

 

[agangbern]

angangbern, I’m also curious whether you can clarify for me whether masturbation is morally disordered, and whether that is a form of homosexual sex? and whether masturbation is a mortal sin?

My opinion is of no value here. Let us go to the Catechism for authoritative answer. Here:
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

and whether it is equally sinful as two people of the same sex engaging in sex acts with each other? I would find it most helpful if you’d share your interpretation with me, rather than simply citing your authority again. I’m interested to understand your analysis. thanks for any insight you are able to provide.

Who am I that you should seek for my interpretation? Why are you not satisfied with what the authorities say? If you object to what the catechism say, then do so and we shall find out the correctness of your objection.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
What? I told gooyfyjim that he was morally disordered? You seem joking, litleDeb! You should have cited instead the post where the alleged malignment was done.

It isn’t just in the context of one post. It begins here in post 234.
Quote:
*Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
“Disordered desire for sexual pleasure is lust. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from procreative and unitive purpose.” (Catechism 2351)

Homosexual is characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire towards another of the same sex. Being of same sex, we can therefore say that their sexual desire is for itself, isolated from any procreative and unitive purpose, a disordered desire.

Therefore, a homosexual is characterized by lust.

And lust, according to the spirit of Mathew 5:28 is sin.

Therefore, homosexuality is a sin!*

[bolded by me]Then you try to clarify in 249, but cannot so posts 254, 259, and 260 reemphasize that you are applying the Catechism 2351 “morally disordered” to the desire of SSA being sinful. Goofyjim bowed out because of this conversation with you.

I don’t know why I bothered to come back in, but I wanted to note the posts because I should have done so before but I was in a hurry. Sorry about that.

As I said before, if you are not saying that having SSA is a sin and I am just misunderstanding you then I apologize. From this post, 234, it certainly reads as if you are saying it is sinful to identify as a homosexual, even a chaste one.

It is very clear that Goofyjim was never maligned in any of my posts. In fact, I did not even know that he is a homosexual. The topic is about gay, and my opinions are as what the topic sought. If my opinions made Goofyjim cry, then it is unfortunate. They were not intended specifically for him, but for all gays in general. That quality of my posts made them non-libelous and non-malignant.
I don’t think you misunderstood me. The language I used here in this thread is as clear as your language such that there is no room for misunderstanding. There simply seems a desire somewhere to thwart what the Church frankly and clearly teaches through the Catechism.

 

[goofyjim]

It is very clear that Goofyjim was never maligned in any of my posts. In fact, I did not even know that he is a homosexual. The topic is about gay, and my opinions are as what the topic sought. If my opinions made Goofyjim cry, then it is unfortunate. They were not intended specifically for him, but for all gays in general. That quality of my posts made them non-libelous and non-malignant.
I don’t think you misunderstood me. The language I used here in this thread is as clear as your language such that there is no room for misunderstanding. There simply seems a desire somewhere to thwart what the Church frankly and clearly teaches through the Catechism.

I didn’t cry. I actually laughed. To believe your statements that anyone is completely characterized by lust whether they be heterosexual or homosexual is a laughable opinion. Even if one defines themselves as a homosexual person they no more walk around in lust than anyone else does.

 

[agangbern]

I didn’t cry. I actually laughed. To believe your statements that anyone is completely characterized by lust whether they be heterosexual or homosexual is a laughable opinion. Even if one defines themselves as a homosexual person they no more walk around in lust than anyone else does.

So, LittleDeb, I hope it is now clear to you: Goofyjim did not feel maligned at all. You alone imagined that Goofyjim was maligned.

And to you, Goofyjim, I understand what you wanted to say here above. And you certainly know now where I stand about this topic, and of the basis of my stand: CCC2351.

Thank you and God Bless!

 

[Fitswimmer]

I didn’t cry. I actually laughed. To believe your statements that anyone is completely characterized by lust whether they be heterosexual or homosexual is a laughable opinion. Even if one defines themselves as a homosexual person they no more walk around in lust than anyone else does.

I’ve mentioned that before-it seems that there is a belief in the heterosexual community that homosexuals think about sex 24/7-which I can assure you that in my case that is patently UNTRUE. Maybe heterosexuals think about sex 24/7, but I’ve got lots of other things on my mind. I’ve got 2 jobs, bills to pay, cats to feed, swim practice to get to, classes to take, books to read…my sexuality is a really, really, really minor part of my day.

I don’t identify myself by my sexuality and I don’t notice that the heterosexuals in my life do either. In fact, most of the people in my real life world don’t even know what my sexuality is, because I have had no need to mention it. I’m simply single with no kids.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’ve mentioned that before-it seems that there is a belief in the heterosexual community that homosexuals think about sex 24/7-which I can assure you that in my case that is patently UNTRUE. Maybe heterosexuals think about sex 24/7, but I’ve got lots of other things on my mind. I’ve got 2 jobs, bills to pay, cats to feed, swim practice to get to, classes to take, books to read…my sexuality is a really, really, really minor part of my day.

I don’t identify myself by my sexuality and I don’t notice that the heterosexuals in my life do either. In fact, most of the people in my real life world don’t even know what my sexuality is, because I have had no need to mention it. I’m simply single with no kids.

I don’t think most heterosexuals believe that homosexuals think about sex 24/7. I think that is the opinion of fringe individuals who may have their own personal issues to deal with.