your opinions on gays

[rlg94086]

So, you are saying in essence that the homosexual’s attraction to the same sex also includes the desire for sex with the latter, except that it doesn’t “entail” only that, and that just as that of the heterosexual, such sexual desire has varying degrees. Therefore, it can be said that, there must be a desire for sex with the same gender in order for one to qualify being a homosexual, right? And absence of a desire for sex with the same gender, the person is not a homosexual.

I

Not necessarily a desire for sex…a desire for a unitive bond, which usually manifests itself in sexual acts. The desire for the sexual act itself, apart from the desire for a unitive bond would be lust. (I think that’s the best way to put it )

As I said, someone making a secular explanation (evolution, freudian theory), would say it all stems from sex, but I believe that our desire to unite with someone is holy, not just animal instinct. Lust entered our lives after the fall. So, someone who is homosexual has that same desire for a unitive bond, but it is “objectively disordered” - IOW instead of desiring a unitive bond with the opposite sex, their heart desires a bond with someone of the same sex.

We are all called to chastity, so in a non-married relationship we must use self-mastery to avoid lust and sexual acts. A person with homosexual desires must do the exact same thing. Their desire for a unitive bond with someone of the same sex is still there, but it in itself is not a sin. That’s what I believe is meant by inclination.

The other attraction you talked about (“idolizing”) is not the same thing. Anyone, even a heterosexual person, could look at someone of the same sex and appreciate their looks, mode of dress, etc. That doesn’t mean they are drawn to a unitive bond with that person, so it does not mean they are a homosexual.

 

[agangbern]

Not necessarily a desire for sex…a desire for a unitive bond, which usually manifests itself in sexual acts. The desire for the sexual act itself, apart from the desire for a unitive bond would be lust. (I think that’s the best way to put it )

As I said, someone making a secular explanation (evolution, freudian theory), would say it all stems from sex, but I believe that our desire to unite with someone is holy, not just animal instinct. Lust entered our lives after the fall. So, someone who is homosexual has that same desire for a unitive bond, but it is “objectively disordered” - IOW instead of desiring a unitive bond with the opposite sex, their heart desires a bond with someone of the same sex.

We are all called to chastity, so in a non-married relationship we must use self-mastery to avoid lust and sexual acts. A person with homosexual desires must do the exact same thing. Their desire for a unitive bond with someone of the same sex is still there, but it in itself is not a sin. That’s what I believe is meant by inclination.

The other attraction you talked about (“idolizing”) is not the same thing. Anyone, even a heterosexual person, could look at someone of the same sex and appreciate their looks, mode of dress, etc. That doesn’t mean they are drawn to a unitive bond with that person, so it does not mean they are a homosexual.

So it is not a desire for sex with the same gender, but a desire for unitive bond. That really is a very safe conception about a homosexual. Seemingly, no desire for sex with the same gender or if there is a desire for it, it is only incidental. If is not necessarily a desire for sex with the same gender but for a unitive bond, then such conception is also true to heterosexual. Therefore, there is no need to call anyone a homosexual. The concept of a homosexual does really exist at all?

 

[rlg94086]

So it is not a desire for sex with the same gender, but a desire for unitive bond. That really is a very safe conception about a homosexual. Seemingly, no desire for sex with the same gender or if there is a desire for it, it is only incidental. If is not necessarily a desire for sex with the same gender but for a unitive bond, then such conception is also true to heterosexual. Therefore, there is no need to call anyone a homosexual. The concept of a homosexual does really exist at all?

Please don’t misquote me. I didn’t say desire for sex is incidental. I’m trying to explain that attraction to another has two aspects - unitive (desire for love and companionship) and sexual. In case you missed it, the difference between homosexual and heterosexual would be the object of desire. If a person’s strong desire for love and companionship (deeper than a friendship) is directed toward someone of the same sex, they would be homosexual.

People don’t walk around constantly desiring sex…whether homosexual or heterosexual.

 

[agangbern]

Please don’t misquote me. I didn’t say desire for sex is incidental. I’m trying to explain that attraction to another has two aspects - unitive (desire for love and companionship) and sexual. In case you missed it, the difference between homosexual and heterosexual would be the object of desire. If a person’s strong desire for love and companionship (deeper than a friendship) is directed toward someone of the same sex, they would be homosexual.

People don’t walk around constantly desiring sex…whether homosexual or heterosexual.

Sorry if you felt misquoted. So, desire for sex with the same gender is not simply incidental to homosexual. It is itself unique to a homosexual, but although it is unique to the homosexual, the fact must not be forgotten that it is also coupled with unitive desire. Have I understood you right this time?I am just trying to picture out what your concept is of a homosexual as distinguished from a heterosexual

 

[rlg94086]

Sorry if you felt misquoted. So, desire for sex with the same gender is not simply incidental to homosexual. It is itself unique to a homosexual, but although it is unique to the homosexual, the fact must not be forgotten that it is also coupled with unitive desire. Have I understood you right this time?

I think so. The point being that when the unitive desire turns to lust for or completion of homosexual acts, the person has sinned, but the “natural” (we don’t know the cause/origin) inclination toward the same sex is not a sin.

Through self-mastery by prayer and sacramental grace, they can still approach Christian perfection.

 

[agangbern]

Originally Posted by agangbern View Post
Sorry if you felt misquoted. So, desire for sex with the same gender is not simply incidental to homosexual. It is itself unique to a homosexual, but although it is unique to the homosexual, the fact must not be forgotten that it is also coupled with unitive desire. Have I understood you right this time?

I think so. The point being that when the unitive desire turns to lust for or completion of homosexual acts, the person has sinned, but the “natural” (we don’t know the cause/origin) inclination toward the same sex is not a sin.

Through self-mastery by prayer and sacramental grace, they can still approach Christian perfection.

You think so. Therefore you are not sure if what I stated above is what you really meant?

 

[rlg94086]

You think so. Therefore you are not sure if what I stated above is what you really meant?

“I think so” as in, based on what you stated, I believe you understand what I mean. However, you could make another statement in you next post that would show that you don’t understand what I mean.

Since you are still “trying to picture out” my “concept” of what a homosexual is, I’m not sure if you fully understand me. I only know within the limited bounds of that one post.

 

[agangbern]

From the foregoing discussions, I gathered the following:

1. What makes a homosexual a homosexual is the desire for sex with the same gender. This is the basic element that distinguishes a homosexual from a heterosexual. Absence of this element, the person is not a homosexual. Unitive desire,although claimed to be also present in a homosexual, is not unique to a homosexual, because even a heterosexual has that element too.
2. The inclination of the homosexual is also desire for sex with the same gender.

CCC2358 declared that the inclination of the homosexual is objectively disordered. Said CCC, however, is silent as to whether that inclination is a sin or not.

There were US Bishops who went their way and declared that this inclination of the homosexual is not sin. I respect that. But it is good to note that they qualified their declaration saying substantially, “to the extent that the inclination is not subject to their will power”. They are saying, therefore, that when the inclination is still within the will power of the homosexual, then it could be a sin.

CCC2351 in substance declares that a desire for sex isolated from procreative purpose is morally disordered. A heterosexual, of course, may have a desire that falls into this category, but we do not have immediate basis to say categorically that his desire is isolated from procreative purpose, except probably if he should tell us so.

The homosexual, in essence, as gathered above desires for sex with the same gender. This desire, although maybe accompanied with “love” and unitive purpose, is unquestionably isolated from procreative purpose. In this light, and in relation to CCC2351, what then is the unavoidable conclusion that would follow as regards the desire for sex with the same gender?

 

[Other_Eric]

It seems to me that there is, in this thread, quite a bit of lazy equivalence drawn between same-sex desires and facially similar opposite-sex desires to the end that some have even gone so far as to posit that the reason sexual acts between members of the same gender are to be abhorred is nothing more than a biological technicality since such sexual acts might be licit if only those individuals who would do them could be wed. It is difficult to imagine a position more contemptuous both of marriage, as if that sacrament were nothing more than a divinely sanctioned license to indulge one’s lusts, and of the nuptial character that God, in His infinite wisdom, has seen fit to etch into the very flesh of humanity.

For all his imprecision and semantic parsing, it is clear to me that agangbern has touched upon one of the chief failings of this sort of pastoral methodology. It ignores the teaching of the Church as set forth in the Catechism and in several pronouncements as well as the Tradition that has been handed down to us through the Apostles. Dante places the sodomites in a different and deeper circle of hell than those who succumb to lusts for the opposite sex, (1) St. Thomas Aquinas recognized same-sex attraction as a more serious failing than its facial equivalent in heterosexual lust, (2) Tertullian called unnatural lusts in particular “monstrosities” (3) and Lot famously preferred that his daughters be raped by the crowd outside of his house than that his male guests be defiled. (4) Clearly the Church has always affirmed the unique depravity inherent in sexual attraction to the same gender.

Further, several here have tried to dance around the obvious disconnect involved in maintaining that same-sex desires can be eliminated through prayer and therapy and the passive acquiescence to such abnormality willed by the individual who resists that change. It is important to understand that complaints concerning failure in such therapy generally fail to take into account the lack of motivation such failed patients exhibit. (5) The continued presence of same-sex attractions therefore involves an act of the culpable will that it is dangerous and uncharitable for Christians to ignore in making their moral assessments.

In the end, one must approach this subject with respect for the complexity involved. The condition defies easy answers and abridging the harsh truth in order to mollify the hypersensitive passions of a few is deeply hostile to Christ’s directive to spread His Word.

(1) Aligheri, Dante. The Divine Comedy. Trans. H. F. Cary. London: Cassell and Company, Limited. Canto XV. Available online at: bulfinch.englishatheist.org/dante/hell/p6.htm#c15

(2) Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. 1920. New Advent. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Online Edition, 2006. Secunda Secundae Partis, Q. 154, Art. 12. Available online at:newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#12

(3) Tertullian. On Modesty. Trans. S. Thelwall. Chapter 4. Available online at: newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm

(4) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Gen. 19:7-8. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis19.htm

(5) Aardweg, Gerard van den. On the Origins and Treatment of Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Reinterpretation. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1986. pp. 250-256.

 

[rlg94086]

It seems to me that there is, in this thread, quite a bit of lazy equivalence drawn between same-sex desires and facially similar opposite-sex desires to the end that some have even gone so far as to posit that the reason sexual acts between members of the same gender are to be abhorred is nothing more than a biological technicality since such sexual acts might be licit if only those individuals who would do them could be wed. It is difficult to imagine a position more contemptuous both of marriage, as if that sacrament were nothing more than a divinely sanctioned license to indulge one’s lusts, and of the nuptial character that God, in His infinite wisdom, has seen fit to etch into the very flesh of humanity.

I haven’t heard anyone posit this argument. Maybe I missed it. What has been said is that some of the acts themselves are licit, if done leading up to the marital embrace (i.e. as foreplay). The marital embrace can only be licit if between a man and a woman, as it must be both unitive and procreative.

For all his imprecision and semantic parsing, it is clear to me that agangbern has touched upon one of the chief failings of this sort of pastoral methodology. It ignores the teaching of the Church as set forth in the Catechism and in several pronouncements as well as the Tradition that has been handed down to us through the Apostles. Dante places the sodomites in a different and deeper circle of hell than those who succumb to lusts for the opposite sex, (1) St. Thomas Aquinas recognized same-sex attraction as a more serious failing than its facial equivalent in heterosexual lust, (2) Tertullian called unnatural lusts in particular “monstrosities” (3) and Lot famously preferred that his daughters be raped by the crowd outside of his house than that his male guests be defiled. (4) Clearly the Church has always affirmed the unique depravity inherent in sexual attraction to the same gender.

Further, several here have tried to dance around the obvious disconnect involved in maintaining that same-sex desires can be eliminated through prayer and therapy and the passive acquiescence to such abnormality willed by the individual who resists that change. It is important to understand that complaints concerning failure in such therapy generally fail to take into account the lack of motivation such failed patients exhibit. (5) The continued presence of same-sex attractions therefore involves an act of the culpable will that it is dangerous and uncharitable for Christians to ignore in making their moral assessments.

I disagree with that psychoanalytic opinion, and it is not a statement of the Church. The Church teaches that we don’t know the origins of homosexual inclination and does not state that it is “an act of the culpable will.”

**

In the end, one must approach this subject with respect for the complexity involved. The condition defies easy answers and abridging the harsh truth in order to mollify the hypersensitive passions of a few is deeply hostile to Christ’s directive to spread His Word.

**

Indeed. And, that is what has been done in this thread. A homosexual inclination is a cross to bear, but it is not in-and-of-itself a sin. Homosexual lust and sexual acts are sins.

 

[Other_Eric]

What has been said is that some of the acts themselves are licit, if done leading up to the marital embrace (i.e. as foreplay). The marital embrace can only be licit if between a man and a woman, as it must be both unitive and procreative.

I disagree with that psychoanalytic opinion, and it is not a statement of the Church. The Church teaches that we don’t know the origins of homosexual inclination and does not state that it is “an act of the culpable will.”

Indeed. And, that is what has been done in this thread. A homosexual inclination is a cross to bear, but it is not in-and-of-itself a sin. Homosexual lust and sexual acts are sins.

The witness of Sacred Scripture identifies the etiology of same-sex attractions as the result of idolatry. (1) This interpretation has been ratified by the Magisterium twice when she said:

In Sacred Scripture [homosexual acts] are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. (2)

and

Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. (3)

As such, it is not accurate to hold that the Church professes complete ignorance about the origin of same-sex attractions.

This is not to say that the inclination itself is a sin, since that would confuse the effects of culpable sin with sin itself. Nevertheless, the presence of the disorder speaks to the character of the individual so afflicted in ways that even the Church, in her authoritative capacity as the guardian of Sacramental Grace, has taken into consideration since “such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.” (4) In fact, the disorder “directly impacts one’s ability to participate in the incarnate, life-giving communion.” (5) Since “progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on one another,” (6) the individual with same-sex attractions therefore has an implicit moral obligation to seek his or her own resolution to the pathology. In fact, it is difficult for me to characterize the unwillingness to pursue such a resolution as anything other than a failure to shoulder one’s cross.

(1) New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Rom 1:22-27. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans1.htm

(2) Seper, Fanjo. Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. Vatican City: Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1975. VIII. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

(3) Ratzinger, Joseph. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Rome: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986. §6. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

(4) Grocholewski, Zenon. Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. Rome: Congregation for Catholic Education, November 4, 2005. §2, #5. Available online at: vatican.va/roman_curia/co…uzione_en.html

(5) West, Christopher. Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s “Gospel of the Body”. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media, 2003. p. 162.

(6) Paul VI. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World: Gaudium et Spes. Vatican City, December 7, 1965. §25. Available online at: vatican.va/archive/hist_c…t-spes_en.html

 

[rlg94086]

The witness of Sacred Scripture identifies the etiology of same-sex attractions as the result of idolatry. (1) This interpretation has been ratified by the Magisterium twice when she said: and As such,** it is not accurate to hold that the Church professes complete ignorance about the origin of same-sex attractions. **

---

Really? I take the Catechism at its word…

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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.

 

[Other_Eric]

rlg94086:
Really? I take the Catechism at its word…
That the psychological genesis of the condition remains unexplained is irrelevant to the spiritual genesis of the condition. Additionally, in the thirteen years since the Catechism has been released, science has made great progess in identifying and treating the condition of same-sex attractions. It betrays a poverty of the intellect to trust the Catechism at the expense Scripture and the other findings of the Magisterium simply because the Catechism, taken out of the context of everything else the Church has said, happens to say something one likes.

 

[rlg94086]

A “poverty of the intellect?” How charitable of you…

Please quote something authoritative from the Church within the last 13 years that speaks to the origin (spiritual or psychological) of the inclination. I would be interested to hear what the Church has to say that is different from what I have read. As you have a rich intellect, I’m sure that won’t be too difficult for you.

That the psychological genesis of the condition remains unexplained is irrelevant to the spiritual genesis of the condition. Additionally, in the thirteen years since the Catechism has been released, science has made great progess in identifying and treating the condition of same-sex attractions. It betrays a poverty of the intellect to trust the Catechism at the expense Scripture and the other findings of the Magisterium simply because the Catechism, taken out of the context of everything else the Church has said, happens to say something one likes.

 

[Other_Eric]

A “poverty of the intellect?” How charitable of you…

Please quote something authoritative from the Church within the last 13 years that speaks to the origin (spiritual or psychological) of the inclination. I would be interested to hear what the Church has to say that is different from what I have read. As you have a rich intellect, I’m sure that won’t be too difficult for you.

I have already quoted from Sacred Scripture and the holdings of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If you do not recognize the authority of either of those two sources, I fail to see what merit can be obtained by referring to anything else.

 

[rlg94086]

I have already quoted from Sacred Scripture and the holdings of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If you do not recognize the authority of either of those two sources, I fail to see what merit can be obtained by referring to anything else.

Of course I recognize their authority. Nothing you quoted contradicts anything I have posted, yet you say I have a “poverty of intellect.” The most recent document (2006) I quoted was from the USCCB, which clearly states that “homosexual inclination is not itself a sin.”
usccb.org/dpp/Ministry.pdf You even mention that the inclination is not a sin in post #783.

You mentioned that “in the thirteen years since the Catechism has been released, science has made great progess in identifying and treating the condition of same-sex attractions.” All of the documents you provided (especially the Scripture) were before the last Catechism was written. Are you saying the Catechism contradicts Sacred Scripture? If something changed in the Magisterial teaching regarding the psychological genesis of homosexual inclinations, you should provide that information rather than insulting me.

We all agree that homosexual acts and lust are sins, I’m not sure what the point is of trying to prove that the inclination itself is a sin. The Church has purposely separated the two issues and given pastoral advice on how to work with those who are struggling with SSA. I think it is best to follow the Church’s lead on this subject.

 

[East_and_West]

Now, a boy could be attracted to another boy in the way the latter speaks, or in the way the latter comb his hair, or in a way as simply to idolize him. And because of that attraction the two could even become friends. But we do not say that because of that they are necessarily homosexuals. May I know what kind of attraction to the same gender is unique to a homosexual?

What do you mean by sexual attraction to one’s own gender?

Look buddy. Just because one is tempted to lust after some one of the same gender does not mean that person lusts after people of the same gender. Gosh man.

 

[Pug]

In fact, the disorder “directly impacts one’s ability to participate in the incarnate, life-giving communion.” (5)

(5) West, Christopher. Theology of the Body Explained: A Commentary on John Paul II’s “Gospel of the Body”. Boston, MA: Pauline Books and Media, 2003. p. 162.

I am unable to locate this as a quote in the location suggested. Here is what I can locate on p. 162.

“…a fundamental and indispensable diversity of roles remains in the male-female relationship [after you take out all the stuff from historical conditionings]. One is not better than the other. They are merely different, different in a way that enables a true communion. Without the *difference *of the sexes, an incarnate, life-giving communion would not be possible.”

Italics in original, I added the bracketed thing. Page 162 does not seem to be directly discussing any type of SSA or homosexuality. The context is the July 30, 1980 audience, which appears to discuss a text from Genesis about how your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you, and also from the sermon on the mount on lust.

Could you restate what you wish to say about this particular audience/passage as it relates to SSA? (or, correct the page number?)

 

[Other_Eric]

I am unable to locate this as a quote in the location suggested. Here is what I can locate on p. 162.

“…a fundamental and indispensable diversity of roles remains in the male-female relationship [after you take out all the stuff from historical conditionings]. One is not better than the other. They are merely different, different in a way that enables a true communion. Without the *difference *of the sexes, an incarnate, life-giving communion would not be possible.”

Italics in original, I added the bracketed thing. Page 162 does not seem to be directly discussing any type of SSA or homosexuality. The context is the July 30, 1980 audience, which appears to discuss a text from Genesis about how your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you, and also from the sermon on the mount on lust.

Could you restate what you wish to say about this particular audience/passage as it relates to SSA? (or, correct the page number?)

It seems in my haste to write my post I put quotations where there should be none. I apologize for that lapse, yet I would point out that my point in the original post remains valid. Same-sex attraction does indeed directly impact the “incarnate, life-giving communion” that constitutes the male-female relationship.

 

[mlchance]

I have already quoted from Sacred Scripture and the holdings of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Yes, you did, but the question asked (“What is the origin of same-sex attraction?”) and the wording of your cites equivocate. The passages you quote don’t discuss same-sex attraction per se but rather address homosexual behavior. The latter stems from a rejection of God, which the Church is clear about. Regarding the origin of the former – the origin of the same-sex attraction itself – the Church has not definitive statement.

– Mark L. Chance.