FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Catholics and homosexuality
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
(03-07-2013, 08:12 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]So it's not sinful for an adult man to look at a child and think "your hot" just as a split second thought but if he thinks beyond that of doing things to the child that is sinful?-even venial sin?

I guess I just got some wrong ideas because to me if a man thinks that about a child even if it lasts a split second and isn't thought about again that's sinful and to think that about a child is beyond venial sin to me...but that's just me I guess.

He could have a thought of doing something to the child for any number of reasons that are innocent, for example, as an attack from the devil, or as a result of having read about sexual abuse of children, or from having a flashback of having been abused himself.  He isn't guilty of sin unless he consents to those thoughts.  We consent to thoughts by consciously allowing them to continue for any reason, i.e. taking pleasure in them, or by plotting how we might carry them out, and failing to pray for assistance.  So, if we unconsciously daydream about something mortally sinful, and we catch ourselves and fight the thoughts, we're not sinning.  It's good to confess our temptations, but it's not absolutely necessary.
(03-07-2013, 07:48 PM)Pheo Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 07:10 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]But I know several posters on CAF and possibly here that would disagree with the former part saying SSA itself isn't a problem, it doesn't become a problem unless you act on it. I think on the other hand, SSA is THE problem that leads to the latter how else does someone become homosexual without the SSA first.

You probably have to use more precise language.  You say that SSA is a problem, but I think we can do better than that.  Let me start off by saying that I agree with pretty much everything Burdensome1 has posted so far, but I really can't tell if you and I are on the same page.

SSAs are obviously disordered and against nature.  The way I see it, a person who develops this disordered appetite either has to exert his will against it or find out why it developed in the first place and fix it (i.e. reparative therapy - although not foolproof, there have been lots of successful cases).  We know this is a problem of concupiscence.  SSA would not have existed before the Fall.

But the Church doesn't say that the mere existence of a disordered appetite is sinful in itself.  The alcoholic's craving for booze isn't sinful if he overcomes it.  The teenage guy's urge to commit self-abuse (which is also disordered and against nature, but on a different level) isn't sinful if he resists it and turns to prayer.  Instead, the person who resists any sort of temptation is building virtue.  I don't see why this couldn't be the case with someone who resists his SSA.

But I also think Mikemac is right in that this is one appetite that is probably best left as an internal struggle or brought up to one's confessor.  I would also hope that anyone with SSA is doing everything they can to reduce/eliminate these attractions.  But airing these thoughts to people with the same disordered appetites?  Holding hands?  Going to parades?  No, those sound like they should all be out of the question.

I think of Mark 9:43-47. Chop off, pluck out.  Now I've heard this explained as even more "extreme" than the OT whereas the thought of committing sin is sin itself.
(03-07-2013, 08:31 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 08:12 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]So it's not sinful for an adult man to look at a child and think "your hot" just as a split second thought but if he thinks beyond that of doing things to the child that is sinful?-even venial sin?

I guess I just got some wrong ideas because to me if a man thinks that about a child even if it lasts a split second and isn't thought about again that's sinful and to think that about a child is beyond venial sin to me...but that's just me I guess.

He could have a thought of doing something to the child for any number of reasons that are innocent, for example, as an attack from the devil, or as a result of having read about sexual abuse of children, or from having a flashback of having been abused himself.  He isn't guilty of sin unless he consents to those thoughts.  We consent to thoughts by consciously allowing them to continue for any reason, i.e. taking pleasure in them, or by plotting how we might carry them out, and failing to pray for assistance.  So, if we unconsciously daydream about something mortally sinful, and we catch ourselves and fight the thoughts, we're not sinning.  It's good to confess our temptations, but it's not absolutely necessary.

Well put thank you. I sometimes (well actually alot) have a problem putting my thoughts into words...and or leaving out part of things I think when writing posts.
(03-07-2013, 08:31 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 08:12 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]So it's not sinful for an adult man to look at a child and think "your hot" just as a split second thought but if he thinks beyond that of doing things to the child that is sinful?-even venial sin?

I guess I just got some wrong ideas because to me if a man thinks that about a child even if it lasts a split second and isn't thought about again that's sinful and to think that about a child is beyond venial sin to me...but that's just me I guess.

He could have a thought of doing something to the child for any number of reasons that are innocent, for example, as an attack from the devil, or as a result of having read about sexual abuse of children, or from having a flashback of having been abused himself.  He isn't guilty of sin unless he consents to those thoughts.  We consent to thoughts by consciously allowing them to continue for any reason, i.e. taking pleasure in them, or by plotting how we might carry them out, and failing to pray for assistance.  So, if we unconsciously daydream about something mortally sinful, and we catch ourselves and fight the thoughts, we're not sinning.  It's good to confess our temptations, but it's not absolutely necessary.

Yeah sins of thought can be mortal sin if we let them.

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
Quote:Mortal sin

Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Reply to Faustus XXII.27) as "Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam", i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to some mutable good. The definition of St. Augustine is accepted generally by theologians and is primarily a definition of actual mortal sin. It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words "dictum vel factum vel concupitum" denote the material element of sin, a human act: "contra legem æternam", the formal element. The act is bad because it transgresses the Divine law. St. Ambrose (De paradiso, viii) defines sin as a "prevarication of the Divine law". The definition of St. Augustine strictly considered, i.e. as sin averts us from our true ultimate end, does not comprehend venial sin, but in as much as venial sin is in a manner contrary to the Divine law, although not averting us from our last end, it may be said to be included in the definition as it stands. While primarily a definition of sins of commission, sins of omission may be included in the definition because they presuppose some positive act (St. Thomas, I-II:71:5) and negation and affirmation are reduced to the same genus. Sins that violate the human or the natural law are also included, for what is contrary to the human or natural law is also contrary to the Divine law, in as much as every just human law is derived from the Divine law, and is not just unless it is in conformity with the Divine law.

Biblical description of sin

In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:11; Isaiah 1:2-4; Jeremiah 2:32); as an insult to God (Numbers 27:14); as something detested and punished by God (Genesis 3:14-19; Genesis 4:9-16); as injurious to the sinner (Tobit 12:10); to be expiated by penance (Psalm 1:19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that sin is a transgression of the law (Romans 2:23; 5:12-20); a servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Romans 6:16-18); a disobedience (Hebrews 2:2) punished by God (Hebrews 10:26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder of the will (John 12:43), an iniquity (1 John 3:4-10). Christ in many of His utterances teaches the nature and extent of sin. He came to promulgate a new law more perfect than the old, which would extend to the ordering not only of external but also of internal acts to a degree unknown before, and, in His Sermon on the Mount, He condemns as sinful many acts which were judged honest and righteous by the doctors and teachers of the Old Law. He denounces in a special manner hypocrisy and scandal, infidelity and the sin against the Holy Ghost. In particular He teaches that sins come from the heart (Matthew 15:19-20).
(03-07-2013, 05:38 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: [ -> ]DeoGratias72,
Yes, philosophy is still a necessary prerequisite for the study of theology.  I highly suggest you read Pope St. Pius X's Doctoris Angelici:

http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/doctoris.htm



Thank you, God bless, Pax  :)
(03-07-2013, 07:27 AM)Benno Wrote: [ -> ]Recent rumours about the gay underground etc in the Church have touched a nerve for me, and I need to vent.

[snip]

I totally believe that there are a lot of homos in the clergy and that they play power games, promote each other etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they have power in the Vatican, as the rumours are suggesting.

I also think that homosexuality is one of the worst evils possible.

It is anti-truth and those who are caught up in it redefine truth to avoid their consciences. Then they band together, and redefine truth to others, to bring new members into the club. I believe this has happened in the Western Church to such an extent that it's time to do something about it. The "spirit of V2" has opened up a can of worms in this area, and I hope that it's time for it to be called out and dealt with by a heroic Pope.

It's surely not just homosexuality (though I'm truly sorry for that particular vice having invaded our Church, because Bishops use the mantle of Christ to force those consecrated to Christ to commit mortal sin, then  :LOL: imagine "the Church" would even hear, much less absolve, defiling Christ's Church. Homos confess to homos; they wouldn't dare speak to a real priest who would require a Penance they could not bear. So don't worry: we all know the Homo Lobby is Hell Bound, and they're fine with that! Don't worry about those clergy who are sold to Satan; let the dead care for the dead. (Yes, the Homo Lobby is "dead"; they are the evil vultures foretold who would be IN the Church, yet not PART of the Church. That's why it's important to find a priest, preferably OLD and not on Viagra, who holds God close to his heart.) As you suggest, discern the obvious by their fruits. Find that God-FEARING priest as if he were the hidden pearl in the sand, and confess to him, and don't even bother with the pretend priests, Bishops, and Cards who we KNOW their future. (Took Holy Orders to get laid; led others astray; unforgiven.)

Btw, I do believe you're right about Vatican II, particularly how they abrogated Saint Pius X' Oath Against Modernism, which would have at least helped stave off the evil we see now in the Church: http://www.truecatholic.us/pope/prevpope-pius10.htm

Don't worry: the Church will NOT absolve those modernist sins; God has a little HOT surprise in store for those priests, Bishops, and yes even Cardinal O'Brien and the rest of the Homo Lobby who despised their Holy Orders the moment they used Christ as an excuse to defile that which is consecrated to Christ. Believe the Bible and things up to Pius X at least (and up to Pius XII imo): the Homo Lobby is happily Hellbound, sold to Satan, and don't even have a desire for forgiveness. They hope Jesus is a gay! As if Jesus cared about sex, and didn't preach exactly the opposite! —All that smack talk about "I'm sorry I raped priests" is just soundbites in an errant attempt by the hierarchy to make the facade of the Church look good; that's why people hit the road to find another parish, because everyone knows they're godless! Seriously, forget them. There's nothing you can do for those who don't want to be helped!

But at least homosexuality is obvious (and filed under "lust" in the Seven Deadlies). One may be perfectly hetero and yet have pride (thinking you're better than God), envy (wishing you were better than God, as Satan did), gluttony, lust (homo and hetero), anger, greed, and sloth. We pretty much all suffer some amount of some of that. Yours and mine is anger at the Church for not cleaning up the homos, but there IS a "righteous anger", such as Jesus displayed at the vendors corrupting God's House. As long as that "righteous anger" doesn't corrupt our souls, and we clean it up and move on (as Our Lord did), righteous anger isn't evil; don't be fooled!

But the seven deadlies are pretty bad, homosexuality merely an obvious part of one. I really got lucky with a  lack of lust (as most women seem to avoid), but I'm not so great with sloth. (I'm mourning the loss of my mother [let light perpetual shine upon her], and feel like the walking dead, and have all but humped "sloth".) And "pride" is one deadly that my personality type has to struggle with constantly; I literally have to practice humility, and I look to Our Lady to do so, and to the Saints, and to those who've gone on before me. (It's funny how you see how HUMBLE someone was ...only after they've gone on to their purging and reward, we pray.)

Greed is another tricky one: we want to save up for our families, maybe to entertain our neighbors, and at some point it slips and becomes the sin of Greed. (Geez, a billion other writers have done the 7 Deadlies much better than myself, so look it up! :) )

The Seven Deadlies are ancient; they're sins that can lead to death; they're throughout the Bible; and the Faithful, those who fear God, those who want to be in Peter's Church given to him by Jesus, we want to examine ourselves and recognize that the homo drag queen over there really isn't that much better than us if we crack open a porn site or want to whistle at [for me] men who seem well-built. *Ouch*. And if that homo drag queen hasn't taken Holy Orders (where you're playing with fire if you're homo), we're no better that homo drag queen. So we're nice to Mr. Queen, for that reason. We put that homo drag queen above ourselves, and humbly pray for them, that as they are blessed, we might also be blessed. Maybe we interact with the homo drag queen; bring them back down a level; hear them out as they speak of why their dressed like a woman... maybe try to help them as they help us.

But the ones who take Holy Orders and ..."fail mortally", leave those to God. We'll see who God deems "the Church" one day, and if Father Fruitcake who felt himself in front of you, pridefully thinking you couldn't resist the Penis of Jesus :pray2: , won't choose Hell on his own (because he's not really "with God" if he's trying to lead you down the road to Perdition!). God's GOT this. Our Lady's GOT this. Let God deal the Vengeance as HE weeds out the Church and the Church is purified over time. Our forebears tried; but Vatican II happened, and we've got to follow our consciences on these matters.

Tend to the poor and lowly; love without expectation; (and I remind myself of these things) keep your good deeds (treasure) in Heaven, so as to not demean (even accidentally) the poor you may help. Look at the example of Mother Teresa and those of the Church that aren't abominations. BE JESUS. It's impossible, but staying in prayer and working as Jesus would, going to Mass, and seeking out valid priests to absolve your sins, stay in Christ during the time our Church is being invaded by the homo lobby. (And the greed lobby. And the sloth lobby. Lust lobby. Gluttony lobby. <-- they're all in there, unfortunately, because Paul VI despised tradition, though maybe because he misunderstood Fatima or something. But the fruits of Vatican II are rot, except for one thing: US. Those of us who may have been simple cradles who never gave a thought to our "tradition", to whom being "Catholic" was more of an ethnicity than a lifestyle.) PRAY! :pray2:
Moderators, does the OP have any authority to ask that the thread be closed, NOW?!

For the sake of my own touched nerve if nothing else! I'm sick of this nonsense. I had to google what "SSA" stood for. Why should a Catholic have to know what SSA stands for? Aren't there plenty of words/ concepts/ truths within the Catholic Faith that preclude the need for a new thing called "SSA"? Frankly, people with "SSA" can "DWIP" (deal with it privately) and stop ITC (infecting the Church). It's time for it to stop.
And that's not dissing of any particular posts.
We are living in the unfortunate times where there is a world-wide push to impose the movement known as "gender theory ideology" (which includes the whole LGBT, etc. umbrella) which Benedict XVI wisely warned us about in his Dec. 2012 address to the Roman Curia. It is not just in the Church, it is rearing its ugly head in the schools, judicial systems, the media, corporate diversity programs, the military, and even within families as some gullible youth are being indoctrinated into it through the influence of the schools and Hollywood. Though it's a subject that's very upsetting, it would be foolish to ignore it and not meet it head on.

For instance, there may come a time when a relative may embrace this movement and seek to impose their will on the rest of a family clan (extended family) by attempting to force the other members to approve perverse behavior that is gravely against God's law. Let's say the relative's a woman who's bringing her "wife" to Christmas dinner and they like to kiss each other and be in your face with it. At that time, the battle lines will have been drawn and a Catholic in the Church Militant will have to choose between allegiance to the family clan (whose members may decide it's easier to "accept" the behavior to be " tolerant"), or choosing allegiance to God's laws above the family clan. By choosing the latter, a Catholic will become an outsider in their own family clan as the rest of the family ignores the elephant in the living room and become cowardly accomplices to the sinful behavior by either their silence or outright approval.

I bet if you share this thread with homosexuals they are go running to confession.  :eyeroll:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37