your opinions on gays

[blessedtoo]

The issue surrounding this ethic of “chastity alone is enough” is that it is found nowhere. I doubt that there is anyone, even in Courage, who would agree that chastity alone is an affirmative defense against ongoing idolatry. Indeed, such a system is too easily conflated with mere sexual suppression.About this it has already been said…

From your own link:

As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.

From that dusty 13 year old Catechism:

**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. **

From the USCCB Pastoral Care of the Homosexual:

While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish
between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is
always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or
inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency.
Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual
temptations or to choose to act on them, simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently,
the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful.

There is currently no scientific consensus on the cause of the homosexual inclination.17

There is no consensus on therapy.

Chaste living overcomes disordered human desires such as lust and results in the
expression of one’s sexual desires in harmony with God’s will. “Chastity means the successful
integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and
spiritual being.”18

continued…

 

[blessedtoo]

Now Eric, I can understand why a lapsed Catholic would have difficulty accepting all the continuous and consitent proclamations made by the Catholic Church on the issue of homosexual inclinations, actions, and chastity. I can understand why someone who perhaps deprives oneself of the graces received through frequent reception of the Sacraments might be sidetracked by the attractive ideas of non-Catholic groups, organizations and psychologists who seem to mirror similar thoughts. I can see how it might be possible for someone who has never actually interacted with a homosexual, chaste or otherwise, to conclude that they are called to some “higher standard” of purity than regular old hetersexual folk. I can understand how confusing Church teaching might be when one selects isolated and often non-related passages from documents completely out of context to prove a point.

However, copious footnotes aside, your point has never been, nor will it ever be representative of Catholic teaching. Indeed, the Catechism, which practicing Catholics consider a pretty unambiguous blueprint for Catholic life, as well as the consistent teaching of the Magesterium is crystal clear.

Homosexual inclination is not a sin.
Homosexual acts are a sin.
All Catholics are called to chastity.

 

[Other_Eric]

What are you talking about?! You haven’t given a clear statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or Scripture. You’ve taken two snippets from which you, Other Eric, drew a conclusion. My contention is that you don’t have the authority.

Try me. Quote a Bishop or theologian that clearly states the case and draws the same conclusion clearly. I challenge you to find one. So far, you have come up empty. I have quoted clear statements from the Catechism and the USCCB…both of which you dismissed btw. Talk about projection!

I’m not sure what you are talking about. I’ve taken two quotes from two separate documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both of which interpret Scripture, both of which were written by bishops, one of whom is the current Pope. Both interpretations say the same thing: same-sex attractions are the sad consequence of rejecting God. You call them “snippets" but I do not see how that is relevant. They are quotes and I have yet to see any indication from you that they are ripped from their context or that they mean anything other than what they plainly say.

Even in the face of these two rather clear statements, you maintain it isn’t clear. I provided you with a citation to one of Christopher West’s writings, which does the exact same thing. Apparently that theologian was not the one you were looking for. What point is there is providing you one clear statement after another from bishops and theologians when you seem more interested in maintaining your apparent confusion than in addressing the black-and-white finding of the Magisterium? I will believe exactly as the Magisterium has pointed out: same-sex attractions are the sad result of rejecting God; they are the clearest example of disharmony between man and God.

 

[agangbern]

I feel I carry the cross of SSA well. To insist that we must go through therapy to change it when we cannot afford it is like saying we must be buy our way into heaven. Jesus has payed the price.

Why cannot they afford it? Is it’s price really that high? Actually, they can change

As long as we are not sinning, which the inclination is clearly not sinning then we have every right to the eternal reward everyone else can expect.

Eternal reward can never be a demandable right of any creature. It is always a generosity and a gift of God. Nothing imperfect, and disordered tendencies are certainly imperfect, can enter heaven. Everyone desiring to enter heaven must free himself from all imperfections. God’s mercy is poured to those who sincerely humble themselves, admit their imperfection, and honestly struggle to change.

D

 

[agangbern]

Indeed, the Catechism, which practicing Catholics consider a pretty unambiguous blueprint for Catholic life, as well as the consistent teaching of the Magesterium is crystal clear.

Homosexual inclination is not a sin.
Homosexual acts are a sin.
All Catholics are called to chastity.

Can you give the link where the Church categorically said that homosexual inclination is NOT A SIN? The CCC said, it is “objectively disordered”. But I did not see any word there that said it is not a sin.

 

[agangbern]

From the USCCB Pastoral Care of the Homosexual:
While the Church teaches that homosexual acts are immoral, she does distinguish
between engaging in homosexual acts and having a homosexual inclination. While the former is
always objectively sinful, the latter is not. To the extent that a homosexual tendency or
inclination is not subject to one’s free will, one is not morally culpable for that tendency.
Although one would be morally culpable if one were voluntarily to entertain homosexual
temptations or to choose to act on them, simply having the tendency is not a sin. Consequently,
the Church does not teach that the experience of homosexual attraction is in itself sinful

Here is from The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

**11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.**

 

[rlg94086]

I’m not sure what you are talking about. I’ve taken two quotes from two separate documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both of which interpret Scripture, both of which were written by bishops, one of whom is the current Pope. Both interpretations say the same thing: same-sex attractions are the sad consequence of rejecting God. You call them “snippets" but I do not see how that is relevant. They are quotes and I have yet to see any indication from you that they are ripped from their context or that they mean anything other than what they plainly say.

Even in the face of these two rather clear statements, you maintain it isn’t clear. I provided you with a citation to one of Christopher West’s writings, which does the exact same thing. Apparently that theologian was not the one you were looking for. What point is there is providing you one clear statement after another from bishops and theologians when you seem more interested in maintaining your apparent confusion than in addressing the black-and-white finding of the Magisterium? I will believe exactly as the Magisterium has pointed out: same-sex attractions are the sad result of rejecting God; they are the clearest example of disharmony between man and God.

I guess we are done then. You did take the two snippets out of context. I know and have spoken with Christopher West, and he does not teach what you think he does in regards to homosexual inclinations. Since you can’t find someone clearly stating what you claim - that homosexual inclinations are theresult of sin. You also have not answered, in your own words, the challenge I presented twice as to the logical conundrum your personal interpretations represents - that the pastoral advice given by the Church to live chastely would still leave someone with homosexuals in a constant state of sin, and is therefore ineffective.

We really have nothing to discuss until you can do those things. I do appreciate your efforts, as I really want to understand your idolatry link, but you have chosen to continually insult me instead.

 

[falbodk]

im new so i just wanna see some opinions . Im all for it

Somewhere in an earlier reply, somebody said something to the affect that the Bible does not actually condem homosexual acts. That’s assumption is not correct. Maybe I missed it, but, has anybody covered the following, especially vs 22, it’s pretty specific?:

Leviticus 18:21-23 (King James Version)

21And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

22Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

23Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

 

[rlg94086]

Here is from The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

Thanks for that quote agangbern. As you can see, the Holy Father (Cardinal at the time, of course) warns us not to make generalizations. We are all guilty of that (there, I just added another generalization ) on this thread, whether claiming inclinations are or are not themselves a sin. In this quote he mentions that culpability may be “reduced or removed” or “increased,” and we have to look at individual cases. IOW…he doesn’t want the “I’m born this way” excuse to be used to excuse sinful actions.

This is obviously not a blanket statement that the inclination is a sin, whereas in the case of behavior, he clearly states that homosexual activity is evil.

My opinion is that this matches up with my personal observation that homosexual inclinations are on a spectrum, rather than black/white. I believe culpability would increase as you move from the “clearly homosexual” side of the spectrum to the heterosexual side.

 

[rlg94086]

Can you give the link where the Church categorically said that homosexual inclination is NOT A SIN? The CCC said, it is “objectively disordered”. But I did not see any word there that said it is not a sin.

Hi agangbern,

It is in the same document from then Cardinal Ratzinger, which you already quoted from:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html (3)

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.

 

[agangbern]

Hi agangbern,

It is in the same document from then Cardinal Ratzinger, which you already quoted from: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/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html (3)

The word “particular” in there makes the difference. It simply means that we do not have to generalize that the homosexual inclination is not a sin. This is in context with point no. 11 of that reference: that the freedom and dignity of the person could either increase or decrease the culpability. And also in context with the declaration of the USCB that it is not a sin but to the extent only that it is not subject to the will power of the person.The inclination therefore should be seen in a case to case basis. But just the same, it is a disordered inclination.

 

[rlg94086]

Hi agangbern,

In rereading some of Good News About Sex & Marriage (by Christopher West) in order to respond to Other Eric, I found some info you may appreciate regarding this topic. It affirms something you have said earlier regarding someone being “homosexual” or “heterosexual.”

God doesn’t create people with homosexual desires any more than he creates people with lust in their hearts for the opposite sex. Both are the result of the fallen world in which we live. In this sense, we’re *all *in need of “reorienting” our sexual desires toward the truth of God’s original plan.
…
I need to clarify the terms being used. We use the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” to distinguish between those who are sexually attracted to the same sex and those who are attracted to the opposite sex. They are useful words in some contexts, but there is an inherent tendency in *naming *such things that leads to treating them as concrete realities when they’re not.

Evil is a useful word, for example. But evil doesn’t exist in its own right. Evil is simply the absence of good, just as cold is the absense of heat, and darkness the absence of light.

My point is that "homo-sexuality" doesn’t exist in its own right. Nor is there really any such thing as "hetero-sexuality." All that really exists is sexuality: the call of men and women to love in the image of God either through marriage or in celibacy. Any other desire or attraction (whether geared toward the same or opposite sex) is a privation, a lack, of this good.
…

Similarly, homosexuals don’t “change” into heterosexuals. Men and women simply become who they are. That is…men and women who struggle with same-sex attraction can and do experience warmth and light. The truth of sexaulity can and does vanquish distortions of sexuality.

West, Christopher. Good News About Sex & Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1997. pp. 154-155.I highly recommend reading this book. Mr. West is a well regarded “expert” on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

 

[rlg94086]

The word “particular” in there makes the difference. It simply means that we do not have to generalize that the homosexual inclination is not a sin. This is in context with point no. 11 of that reference: that the freedom and dignity of the person could either increase or decrease the culpability. And also in context with the the declaration of the USCB that it is not a sin but to the extent only that it is is subject to the will power of the person.The inclination therefore should be seen in a case to case basis. But just the same, it is a disordered inclination.

It is a disordered inclination, but the willpower has to act on this inclination…that’s where the sin comes in. Sin requires an act of the will.

 

[agangbern]

Hi agangbern,

In rereading some of Good News About Sex & Marriage (by Christopher West) in order to respond to Other Eric, I found some info you may appreciate regarding this topic. It affirms something you have said earlier regarding someone being “homosexual” or “heterosexual.”

West, Christopher. Good News About Sex & Marriage: Answers to Your Honest Questions about Catholic Teaching. Cincinnati, OH: St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1997. pp. 154-155.
I highly recommend reading this book. Mr. West is a well regarded “expert” on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body.

I wish you just give the link.

 

[rlg94086]

I wish you just give the link.

There isn’t one…it’s a book, from which I typed out the text. Sorry.

 

[agangbern]

It is a disordered inclination, but the willpower has to act on this inclination…that’s where the sin comes in. Sin requires an act of the will.

And, surely, the homosexual has equal dignity and will power given by God to every person.

 

[East_and_West]

And, surely, the homosexual has equal dignity and will power given by God to every person.

Look buddy. I struggle with homosexual attaction every day. But one thing I do know. Being tempted to lust is one thing and actually lusting is another thing!! I am offended by your posts on this forum. Everyday I struggle to confrom my sexuality to God’s will and its hard. The fact is that people like you push away other homosexuals from trying to live a chaste life. LORD have mercy!!!

 

[AgnosTheist]

Homosexuals have something wrong in their wiring.

I agree. There is something wrong with their genetic makeup thats why i find it unethical to label the homosexual act as sinful. Its disgusting but its their natural design to act that way. So I learned to tolerate it.

 

[mlchance]

Isn’t it more accurate to say that homosexual acts find their origin in homosexual temptations? It seems that the dichotomy you are attempting to discern does not exist. The ability to act in a homosexual manner presupposes an inclination to that sort of activity. If it is your position that individuals routinely engage in same-sex coitus absent any temptation or will to do so, then you must reject entirely the concept of Free Will.

One cannot conflate the inclination to sin with the sin itself, no matter what the sin. The inclination to sin doesn’t result from deliberate rejection of God’s will; it results from Original Sin. The sin itself, however, results from the deliberate rejection of God’s will. This is true no matter what the sin.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree. There is something wrong with their genetic makeup thats why i find it unethical to label the homosexual act as sinful. Its disgusting but its their natural design to act that way. So I learned to tolerate it.

The problem with that reasoning is twofold. First of all, the idea that it is a genetic issue is only a guess. There is no evidence.

The second problem is that I don’t think you would excuse any other “disgusting” acts, if they were found to be genetic. For example, if they find that pedophilia or bestiality is a genetic disposition, would you just “learn to tolerate it?”

This is the reason the Church separates the inclination from the act when it comes to sin. We may have a murderous impulse, theft impulse, etc., and these impulses come to us “naturally.” However, once we act on that natural impulse and kill someone or steal from them, we have sinned.